Darkside_Spirit vs Grand_Moff_Monkey: The Great Debate

I'm sure both Darkside and I would love supervisors and colleagues like that. Since DS is still at college and uses the net in the evening (our time) I think it's a pretty safe bet he doesn't have the Kazaa vs Morpheus co-workers you described. But I certainly wouldn't mind them. That way I wouldn't have to take up loads of my free time researching this debate.

 

In English, the word "wings" can mean:
1. Appendages which, through their function of trapping air, enable an animal or machine to fly (e.g. "wings of a 747"; "flapped its wings")
2. Outlying or side parts (e.g. "the house had east and west wings").
The Isaiah references provided by GMM demonstrate that "kanaph" can be translated as appendages which enable flight. However, none of them show the translation of "kanaph" as outlying or side parts. Consequently, in defining "kanaph" as "wings", we are restricted to the first meaning. To justify defining "kanaph" as appendages which enable flight, and on that basis redefine "kanaph" to mean outlying or side parts, commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Having established the limited definition of "wings" with regard to "kanaph", we may now substitute it into the verse:
...he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four flight-enabling appendages of the earth.
If we are to define "kanaph" as "wings", then we are faced with the conclusion that the writer of Isaiah pictured the earth as an object flying through the air, with four air-trapping appendages protruding out of it. This notion of a bird-shaped earth is so patently ridiculous that I ignored the possibility in my previous post, dealing only with "kanaph" taken to mean "extremities".

Again, you're missing my point. You've acknowledged that "wings of the earth" cannot be taken as a literal statement. In the light of that, why is it so outrageous to suggest that Isaiah may have possibly used the phrase as a non-literal expression? I think that "four wings of the earth" is the most likely meaning in this verse for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, "wing(s)" is the primary meaning of kanaph. Of the 108 times the word appears in the Bible, 74 of them are translated as "wing(s)".

Secondly, Isaiah uses "kanaph" as "wing(s)" elsewhere in his book (see above for references). The most pertinent of these is 18:1 in which a "land of whirring wings" is mentioned. Alec Motyer, who studied and taught on the Hebrew text of Isaiah for thirty years before publishing his book The Prophecy of Isaiah, says of this verse: "The land of whirring wings originally referred to Egypt with its endemic profusion of flying insects, but Egypt is not now mentioned and the whirring wings constitute a picture of the busy, restless world." (p. 161)

But whether the land of whirring wings applies to Egypt or not is a moot point. What is important is that a land/nation is symbolically referred to as having wings. So if Isaiah uses the imagery of a land with wings here, there's no reason to say he can't use the same imagery with reference to the whole earth. Moreover, his use of the wings imagery in Chapter 18 is a good indication that this is how he meant for "kanaph" to be interpreted in Chapter 11. The use of words and motifs is far more important in poetry than it is in prose. If Isaiah had meant to say the four extremities of the earth, there were plenty of other words for him to use (e.g. "qatseh" etc). These are all very good indications that Isaiah meant 11:12 to be interpreted as "wings" just as 18:1 uses "wings".

Let's underline the non-literal elements of 11:10-12:
(i) In this excerpt, there are only two expressions which are clearly symbolic--"Root of Jesse" and "reach out his hand" (which refer to God and the Messiah, where symbolism is much more probable). The rest of the passage is literal.

Not so. The Messiah (Root of Jesse) isn't literally going to be a banner, so that's another bit of symbolism. Then we've got the "place of rest". That's fairly ambiguous. Is it referring to an actual place where people are going to rest, or is it a spiritual rest (as described in [link=http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=ps+95%3A11&v

 

Again, you're missing my point. You've acknowledged that "wings of the earth" cannot be taken as a literal statement.

We are faced with a choice between two definitions of "kanaph":
1. "extremities"
2. "wings" (as in, flying appendages).

GMM is correct in that, if "kanaph" did carry meaning #2 in this instance, then a figurative interpretation would be inevitable. However, I consider "extremities" to be far more likely in this context, for the following reasons:

(i) Why would the writer possibly talk about parts of the earth as if they were wings? Whether the usage is figurative or literal, a bird-shaped earth is a ridiculous notion. There is no reason whatsoever to use wings as imagery in respect of the earth (or parts thereof).

(ii) Why would there be "four" wings in particular? As I've already pointed out, the nations in Isaiah 11:11 do not form any four particular groups or directions, nor is there any indication that the "four kanaphs" relate to the four compass points. Wings usually come in pairs.

Firstly, "wing(s)" is the primary meaning of kanaph. Of the 108 times the word appears in the Bible, 74 of them are translated as "wing(s)".

(i) Individual contextual indications must always take priority. If all usages were translated on the basis of others, there'd be no starting point and you'd be going round in circles.

(ii) 69% to 31% doesn't constitute an overwhelming majority by any means. If the ratio was 95% to 5%, we could be almost certain that a particular usage was "wings" and not "extremities". But with a ratio of a little over 2:1, we should only turn to numerical comparisons of other translations as a last resort, where there is an absence or near-absence of any contextual evidence.

Secondly, Isaiah uses "kanaph" as "wing(s)" elsewhere in his book (see above for references). The most pertinent of these is 18:1 in which a "land of whirring wings" is mentioned. Alec Motyer, who studied and taught on the Hebrew text of Isaiah for thirty years before publishing his book The Prophecy of Isaiah, says of this verse: "The land of whirring wings originally referred to Egypt with its endemic profusion of flying insects, but Egypt is not now mentioned and the whirring wings constitute a picture of the busy, restless world." (p. 161)

Note the first two words in "land of whirring wings". That phrase clearly relates to a piece of land containing whirring wings. By contrast, Isaiah 11:12 speaks of the land as if it were the wings themselves. If the presence/absence of a specifically referenced piece of land were the only difference between 18:1 and 11:12, then it would be acceptable to look at 18:1, which refers to Egypt, and conclude that the wings of 11:12 probably refer to a country/countries. But 18:1 includes the words "land of", which change the meaning totally. Also note that Motyer has provided no substantiation for his claim that "the whirring wings constitute a picture of the busy, restless world" (indeed, in 11:12 the word "whirring" is absent).

But whether the land of whirring wings applies to Egypt or not is a moot point. What is important is that a land/nation is symbolically referred to as having wings.

No, it is not. Egypt is, by the phrase "land of", referred to as containing whirring wings, not being wings alone.

If Isaiah had meant to say the four extremities of the earth, there were plenty of other words for him to use (e.g. "qatseh" etc).

But according to GMM's own statistics, the Biblical writers use "kanaph" 34 times to signify "extremities" (assuming the translations are correct).

Not so. The Messiah (Root of Jesse) isn't literally going to be a banner, so that's another bit of symbolism. Then we've got the "place of rest". That's fairly ambiguous. Is it referring to an actual place where people are goin

 

In all honesty, Darkside, I don't think we're going to come to any agreement on this. I've said basically the same points for my last three posts, and if I was to answer your latest post, I'll just be repeating myself again.

If you feel that it's vital that we continue with this issue, so be it. But if not, with your permission, I'd like to just move on to the next topic.

 

In consideration of the debate's slow pace up to now, myself and Grand_Moff_Monkey have agreed the following new system:

1. There will henceforth be a limit of four posts per point. GMM posts a rebuttal (one post), I respond to it (one post), he defends the rebuttal (one post) and I make a final response (one post).

2. Since this would otherwise give me the last word, GMM may summarise the previous topic at the beginning of his next rebuttal.

3. Putting in an extra line of reasoning at the end, so that the opposition cannot respond to it, is prohibited. Should this happen, the other person reserves the right to respond.

 

So back to your original post:

As a starting point, let us look to the Biblical view of the universe and the state of the terrestrial world. A wide variety of verses support the common ancient misconception that the earth is flat, is the centre of the universe, rests on four pillars, and is surrounded by seas.

In this post I'll deal with the verses that appear to refer to the Earth resting on pillars (and include the verses about foundations and cornerstones). By the way, this post looks at all the remaining verses you had as references for the above points. That means that two of your points had no references at all: the Earth as the center of the universe, and the Earth surrounded by seas. Please could you either post references for both of these, or retract your statement that the Bible teaches either of them.



Does the earth rest on four pillars?

Well, none of the verses say that there are four pillars. (Where did you get the four from?) But as far as there being pillars at all, here are the references:

When the earth and all its people quake,
it is I who hold its pillars firm. (Psalm 75:3)

The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved. (Psalm 93:1)

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved. (Psalm 104:5)

"Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.
For the foundations of the earth are the Lord's;
upon them he has set the world." (1 Samuel 2:8)

He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand." (Job 38:4)

"On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone." (Job 38:6)

The context of every one of these verses is poetic. Again we see verses from the Psalms and Job making an appearance. Both of these books are poetic books. Then we've got 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Both of these books are narrative, so that's a promising start. However, in 1 Samuel there is a chapter in which Hannah (Samuel's mother) prays and this prayer is written as a psalm. Guess the chapter. That's right ? Chapter 2, where your reference is taken from. There's a similar case in 1 Chronicles. It's a very long book, almost entirely in prose ? with the exception of one chapter. Any guesses which chapter? Yup - Chapter 16, in which King David gives a Psalm of thanksgiving. So all of these references to do with pillars or foundations are from poetic sections of the Bible.

As well as the literary context of all the verses being poetic, the verses surrounding these references clarify that we are not dealing with a literal blueprint of the planet, but rather what we have are clear cases of symbolism:

As well as the earth, people quake also (Psalm 75:3)

The Lord is "robed" in majesty (Psalm 93:1)

Let's look at Psalm 104:5 in context. God is clothed with splendour, and wraps himself in light. To assume a literal meaning in any of this is absurd:

Praise the Lord , O my soul.
O Lord my God, you are very great;
you are clothed with splendor and majesty.
He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
He makes winds his messengers,
flames of fire his servants.
He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved. (Psalm 104:1-5)

In 1 Chronicles 16 we are told "Then the trees of the forest will sing" (verse 33)

Consider Hannah's words in 1 Samuel 2 (see above). God doesn't literally lift needy people from ash-heaps, but it's beautifully symbolic of his care for the

 

As a starting point, let us look to the Biblical view of the universe and the state of the terrestrial world. A wide variety of verses support the common ancient misconception that the earth is flat, is the centre of the universe, rests on four pillars, and is surrounded by seas.

In this post I'll deal with the verses that appear to refer to the Earth resting on pillars (and include the verses about foundations and cornerstones). By the way, this post looks at all the remaining verses you had as references for the above points. That means that two of your points had no references at all: the Earth as the center of the universe, and the Earth surrounded by seas. Please could you either post references for both of these, or retract your statement that the Bible teaches either of them.

Genesis 1:6-7 (NRSV):

And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.

--Indicates that there are waters (i.e. seas) surrounding the sky.

Joshua 10:12-13 (NRSV):

On the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord; and he said in the sight of Israel,
'Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.'
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

--Indicates that the Sun orbits the earth (it, rather than the earth, is commanded to stop).

The context of every one of these verses is poetic. Again we see verses from the Psalms and Job making an appearance. Both of these books are poetic books. Then we've got 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Both of these books are narrative, so that's a promising start. However, in 1 Samuel there is a chapter in which Hannah (Samuel's mother) prays and this prayer is written as a psalm. Guess the chapter. That's right - Chapter 2, where your reference is taken from. There's a similar case in 1 Chronicles. It's a very long book, almost entirely in prose - with the exception of one chapter. Any guesses which chapter? Yup - Chapter 16, in which King David gives a Psalm of thanksgiving. So all of these references to do with pillars or foundations are from poetic sections of the Bible.

That's entirely correct. However, poetry can still be analysed to determine the beliefs of the person who authored it. Consider:

(i) Many of the verses do not just reference the earth, but rather make direct statements about it. In the case of "ends of the earth", the verses were just referring to the ends (e.g. "The Lord will judge the ends of the earth"). They weren't positively stating: "There are ends of the earth".

(ii) The earth is a natural, observable and material object, whereas God is a supernatural, transcendent, non-material entity. Many of the surrounding instances of symbolism pertain to the deity, where symbolism will inevitably be used. This doesn't necessarily mean that comments about the earth have to be figurative. Let's take GMM's comments regarding Psalms 104:5:

Let's look at Psalm 104:5 in context. God is clothed with splendour, and wraps himself in light. To assume a literal meaning in any of this is absurd:

Praise the Lord , O my soul.
O Lord my God, you are very great;
you are clothed with splendor and majesty.
He wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
He makes winds his messengers,
flames of fire his servants.
He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved. (Psalm 104:1-5)

Psalms 104:1-4 pertains to God's nature (and is written in the present tense). This is in contrast with Psalms

 

Genesis 1:6-7 Indicates that there are waters (i.e. seas) surrounding the sky.

Surrounding the sky? In your original post, you seemed to suggest that the Bible teaches water surrounds the whole earth. So which is it? At any rate, I'll look at this verse in my next post.

Joshua 10:12-13--Indicates that the Sun orbits the earth (it, rather than the earth, is commanded to stop).

Well, you have this as a separate point in your original post. So we?ll discuss this verse when we come to it (once I deal with the "surrounded by seas" reference).

The context of every one of these verses is poetic. Again we see verses from the Psalms and Job making an appearance. Both of these books are poetic books. Then we've got 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. Both of these books are narrative, so that's a promising start. However, in 1 Samuel there is a chapter in which Hannah (Samuel's mother) prays and this prayer is written as a psalm. Guess the chapter. That's right ? Chapter 2, where your reference is taken from. There's a similar case in 1 Chronicles. It's a very long book, almost entirely in prose ? with the exception of one chapter. Any guesses which chapter? Yup - Chapter 16, in which King David gives a Psalm of thanksgiving. So all of these references to do with pillars or foundations are from poetic sections of the Bible.

That's entirely correct. However, poetry can still be analysed to determine the beliefs of the person who authored it.

Ok, so let's analyse what Shakespeare believed about the Earth from his poetry. He lived in a scientifically unenlightened era, and we can see that his beliefs about the planet are ridiculous:

All the world's a stage (As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7)

Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light (Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene 2)

That this foul deed shall smell above the earth (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1)

For thou hast made the happy earth thy hell (Richard III, Act 1, Scene 2)

The earth's a thief, (Timon of Athens, Act IV, Scene 3)

From the four corners of the earth they come, (Merchant of Venice, Act II, Scene 7)

The crown o' the earth doth melt. (Anthony and Cleopatra, Act IV, Scene 15)


So we can clearly see that Shakespeare believed that the world was actually a stage (and therefore made of wood), that stars can tread on it, and that it's possible to smell "foul deeds" above it. The earth is not only happy, but it's also a thief. It has four corners (sorry, I couldn't resist that one ). To top it all off, the earth also wears a crown which can melt.

(i) Many of the verses do not just reference the earth, but rather make direct statements about it. In the case of "ends of the earth", the verses were just referring to the ends (e.g. "The Lord will judge the ends of the earth"). They weren't positively stating: "There are ends of the earth".

Shakespeare also makes direct statements about the earth in his poetry. He says that the whole planet is a stage. Since it's a direct statement, he must have believed it to be literally true. Of course we need to ignore the fact that he was writing in poetry, but that's just a minor oversight.

(ii) The earth is a natural, observable and material object, whereas God is a supernatural, transcendent, non-material entity. Many of the surrounding instances of symbolism pertain to the deity, where symbolism will inevitably be used. This doesn't necessarily mean that comments about the earth have to be figurative. Let's take GMM's comments regarding Psalms 104:5.

You're correct that God is depicted in symbolic ways in Psalm 104. But what about the other verses you gave as references? Like the earth, trees are also natural, observable and material objects. 1 Chronicles 16 was one of the chapters you quoted from, in which trees are depicted as singing (verse 33). You also quoted from Psalm 75:3. In that very verse, people actually quak

 

I find your sarcasm refreshing, GMM. Do you remember that owl-picture contest we had a couple of months back?

Surrounding the sky? In your original post, you seemed to suggest that the Bible teaches water surrounds the whole earth. So which is it? At any rate, I'll look at this verse in my next post.

The sky is dome-shaped, and there is water all around it. The earth is enclosed by the sky. Therefore, water surrounds the earth.

Well, you have this as a separate point in your original post. So we'll discuss this verse when we come to it (once I deal with the "surrounded by seas" reference).

That's why I didn't provide references. Both Genesis and Joshua are separate points.

Ok, so let's analyse what Shakespeare believed about the Earth from his poetry. He lived in a scientifically unenlightened era, and we can see that his beliefs about the planet are ridiculous...

I'm not saying that all poetry should be interpreted literally, anymore than all prose should be interpreted literally. I'm making the point that poetry is not automatically disqualified from consideration.

(Wouldn't mind living in the literal Shakespeare world though. It sounds quite interesting.)

Shakespeare also makes direct statements about the earth in his poetry. He says that the whole planet is a stage. Since it's a direct statement, he must have believed it to be literally true. Of course we need to ignore the fact that he was writing in poetry, but that's just a minor oversight.

(Emphasis added)

Again, my line of reasoning is taken too far. Replace "he must have believed it to be literally true" with "it is more likely to be literal". Replace "ignore the fact that he was writing in poetry" with "not automatically disqualify poetry from consideration, by virtue of its poetic nature alone". Those are the points I was trying to make.


Despite the poetic nature of the references, I draw the conclusion that the Biblical writers believed in an earth with pillars/foundations for the following reasons:

(i) The references to pillars/foundations are found in a variety of contexts.

Before I'm accused of "recycling the frequency argument", I am not stating that the references to pillars and foundations must be literally true simply because, numerically, they appear many times. Rather, I'm saying that the references to pillars and foundations appear consistently throughout different situations.

Take the Shakespeare analogy. His statement "all the world's a stage" appears many times in his works, yes. But all of these appear in plays--plays which deal with human relationships. Life is like an extended play, so to speak. But even within the context of a single poetic genre, Shakespeare uses a variety of different images in different situations. Different metaphors are used for different contexts, and we don't have the image of the earth as a stage used unwaveringly throughout.

In the case of the Bible's references to pillars and foundations, we do have one theme running consistently throughout--that of the pillars/foundations. It appears in psalms, proverbs, prayers, and prophecies, and in many different situations within them.

(ii) Many civilisations believed in an earth with literal foundations/pillars.

In the time of the Biblical writers, the shape of the earth was still uncertain. Many surrounding civilisations believed that the earth did indeed possess pillars. This makes use of them as imagery less likely. If, in Shakespeare's era, many people did hold that the earth was a giant stage (unlikely, I know), then he would have been less inclined to use "all the world's a stage" as a figure of speech--it would not be easily identifiable as imagery, reducing its effectiveness, and it would likely cause confusion. Similarly, the Biblical writers were surrounded by cosmologies featuring a flat earth with pillars, and that wo

 

I do indeed remember the Owl posting thread.
[image=http://www.westyorkshirebirdsofprey.co.uk/barny2.JPG]
Ah, those were the days.

Anyway, down to business...


My summing up is simply this: a handful of verses taken from entirely poetic passages are insufficient to determine that the biblical writers had a belief that the planet was supported by pillars.

Just one point about your last post:

Many surrounding civilisations believed that the earth did indeed possess pillars. This makes use of them as imagery less likely.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't aware that any ancient civilizations at all believed the earth rested on pillars. The Greeks thought it was on Atlas, and some other cultures believed is was supported by four giant elephants on the back of a giant turtle. It all sounds very Terry Pratchett, doesn't it? I'm not aware of any cultures believing in pillars under the earth though.



With this post, I'm going to combine a couple of Darkside's points from his original post as they are both related:

As a starting point, let us look to the Biblical view of the universe and the state of the terrestrial world. A wide variety of verses support the common ancient misconception that the earth is flat, is the centre of the universe, rests on four pillars, and is surrounded by seas.

...and the sky is a solid dome with holes that allow rain through

Is the sky a solid dome?

Genesis 1:6-7 (NRSV): And God said, 'Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.

The Hebrew word in question here is raqiya'. It can indeed refer to an extended solid surface as well as an expanse. "Dome", however, is really pushing the meaning of the word. The problem with the NRSV as a translation is that it tends to decide what the writer must have meant and then translates accordingly. Some would consider this approach to be scholarly; personally I find it to be incredibly presumptuous. When approaching any text, regardless of the language, we must be careful not to superimpose onto it any of our own ideas, but instead simply look at it and see what the text is actually saying. (That's one of the reasons I personally don't use this translation, and also why it's sometimes jokingly referred to as the Not Really Sound Version.)

The text does not say dome. NRSV has decided that "raqiya'" here is referring to a solid surface. Since many of the ancient civilizations did indeed believe that the sky was a solid dome, the NRSV has decided that Genesis must have been referring to this, and translated it accordingly. This is rather like the old magic trick of pulling the rabbit out the hat that the magician himself put in there. If you approach it from the point of view that the writer of Genesis must have believed the sky to be solid, then the text is equivocal enough for you to see it that way.

Firstly, let me show how the other major English translations render this section of Genesis, and then I will explain why I think that "expanse" is a far more likely translation of "raqiya'" here:

New International Version (NIV)
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of

 

(no message)

 

(no message)

 

(no message)

Apologies for the blank posts. I'm having trouble with Snowboards--I'll get the message up as soon as I can.

 

Firstly, apologies for the two typos. Isaiah 14:22 (under point [4]) has been replaced by Genesis 8:22, and Joshua 11:13 (point [2]) actually refers to Joshua 10:13.

The Hebrew word in question here is raqiya'. It can indeed refer to an extended solid surface as well as an expanse. "Dome", however, is really pushing the meaning of the word. The problem with the NRSV as a translation is that it tends to decide what the writer must have meant and then translates accordingly. Some would consider this approach to be scholarly; personally I find it to be incredibly presumptuous. When approaching any text, regardless of the language, we must be careful not to superimpose onto it any of our own ideas, but instead simply look at it and see what the text is actually saying. (That's one of the reasons I personally don't use this translation, and also why it's sometimes jokingly referred to as the Not Really Sound Version.)

The text does not say dome. NRSV has decided that "raqiya'" here is referring to a solid surface. Since many of the ancient civilizations did indeed believe that the sky was a solid dome, the NRSV has decided that Genesis must have been referring to this, and translated it accordingly. This is rather like the old magic trick of pulling the rabbit out the hat that the magician himself put in there. If you approach it from the point of view that the writer of Genesis must have believed the sky to be solid, then the text is equivocal enough for you to see it that way.

I agree entirely with GMM's comments regarding the NRSV; the only reason I'm using it is because it's the only translation I have available 'on paper'. I'm aware that raqiya' really has no relation to "dome", and that to translate it as such mutilates the text.

Firstly, let me show how the other major English translations render this section of Genesis, and then I will explain why I think that "expanse" is a far more likely translation of "raqiya'" here...We can clearly see that the NRSV stands alone in translating "raqiya'" as "dome". The other translations favour "expanse" or "firmament".

In order to deal with this, I need to know how GMM interprets the (alleged) expanse dividing the waters from the waters--i.e., "what were the waters above the expanse?" So I'll leave this particular point until I have more information.

So where is the dome created? It's created in the waters. It separates the waters from the waters. So this dome is created in the waters and separates the water above from the water below. Fine so far, but that still leaves the dome in the waters. The dome is then called the sky. But hold the phone - the dome is still in the waters. How did this huge dome get thousands of feet up in the air? If it's the story of creation, surely it would tell us.

Why does the dome have to be raised into the air at all? What's to say that the base of the dome isn't at ground level? After all, there are no particular characteristics that define the middle of the sky as opposed to the "sides". Why assume that the dome must be raised high above the earth, with something else forming the sky's "sides" (from our perspective?)

It could be argued that the dome is still filled with water, and the dome must be raised up in order to get rid of this water. But it seems that outside the dome, only more water is present. Note that Genesis states, later: "'Let the waters under the sky be gathered together in one place, and let the dry land appear.'" I interpret the initial verses of Genesis to describe a vast sea, surmounting a seabed. A dome is then formed in the water, resting on the seabed--separating the waters enclosed by the dome, from the vast ocean outside. Once the dome has been formed, most of the water inside it can be drained away; the inside can be filled with air, and dry land can appear.

So if a dome was created, an expanse would also have to be created to lift this dome up into the air. So however we r

 

Firstly, well done for your diagrams. A lot of time and thought clearly went into them.

Darkside_Spirit said: I agree entirely with GMM's comments regarding the NRSV; the only reason I'm using it is because it's the only translation I have available 'on paper'. I'm aware that raqiya' really has no relation to "dome", and that to translate it as such mutilates the text.

So hang on, if you've admitted that "raqiya'" doesn't mean "dome", why do you insist in interpreting it as a dome?

Darkside_Spirit said: Why does the dome have to be raised into the air at all? What's to say that the base of the dome isn't at ground level? After all, there are no particular characteristics that define the middle of the sky as opposed to the "sides". Why assume that the dome must be raised high above the earth, with something else forming the sky's "sides" (from our perspective?)

Three references to "dome" in a single paragraph? Let me quote your words: "I'm aware that raqiya' really has no relation to 'dome', and that to translate it as such mutilates the text." So how does what you're doing not qualify as mutilating the text?

Darkside_Spirit said: It could be argued that the dome is still filled with water, and the dome must be raised up in order to get rid of this water. But it seems that outside the dome, only more water is present. Note that Genesis states, later: "'Let the waters under the sky be gathered together in one place, and let the dry land appear.'" I interpret the initial verses of Genesis to describe a vast sea, surmounting a seabed. A dome is then formed in the water, resting on the seabed--separating the waters enclosed by the dome, from the vast ocean outside. Once the dome has been formed, most of the water inside it can be drained away; the inside can be filled with air, and dry land can appear.

Yes that could be argued. If I were so inclined, I could argue that it was a giant bunny rabbit that was created in the midst of the waters. But since "raqiya'" doesn't mean "giant bunny rabbit", my argument falls down. Similarly, "raqiya'" doesn't mean "dome" either, so this hypothesis holds no water (no pun intended ).

Darkside_Spirit said: The stars, sun and moon are attached to the dome, but they can move across its surface. A bit like a cable car--the cars are attached to the rail, but that doesn't stop them from moving along it.

Interesting idea. Any chance of just one verse that backs up the "cable car" hypothesis?

Darkside_Spirit said: They all reference the "raqiya' of the heavens". So the celestial objects are still set in the raqiya'.

Since we have quite a long section later in the debate on Genesis Chapter 1, I'm going to leave this point for now. What I say about it will make much more sense when we look at the chapter as a whole.

Darkside_Spirit said: The fact that "windows/floodgates of the heavens" is used in connection with heavy rain is simply a restatement of my point. Regarding Malachi 3:10, "pour down for you" clearly uses the imagery of rain to represent blessing. "Open the windows of heaven for you" seems, logically, an extension of that imagery.

So, as we have a clear reference in which "windows of heaven" is used figuratively, why are you so certain that it must be interpreted literally all the other times it appears? Besides, you've ignored my point about the biblical writers being fully aware that clouds are the source of rain (see my last post for references).

Darkside_Spirit said: Let's assess the opening verses of Genesis diagrammatically. Originally, I had written out lots of complicated markups in order to present some pretty colour-coding. However, the inadequacies of Snowboards mean that black and white will have to suffice. That is, unless anyone knows how to stop the board inserting spaces randomly in tags (for example [link ] or [/ color]), causi

 

Glad you like my diagrams.

So hang on, if you've admitted that "raqiya'" doesn't mean "dome", why do you insist in interpreting it as a dome?

Because raqiya' does mean "hammered metal"--which, in context, seems to be dome-shaped.

Three references to "dome" in a single paragraph? Let me quote your words: "I'm aware that raqiya' really has no relation to 'dome', and that to translate it as such mutilates the text." So how does what you're doing not qualify as mutilating the text?

To directly translate the word "wall" as "68 bricks" mutilates the English language, and has no basis. This does not stop us from assuming, in context, that "wall" in this particular instance refers to 68 bricks. We might be given the dimensions of the wall, from which we calculate that 68 bricks are required. Or, there might be a statement within the text that the number of bricks in the wall is 68. It's the same with raqiya'.

Does the word raqiya' mean dome? No.

Is it right to directly translate raqiya' as dome? No.

Is it right to translate raqiya' as "hammered metal", which is the proper definition, and then assume in context that the hammered metal is dome-shaped? Yes.

Interesting idea. Any chance of just one verse that backs up the "cable car" hypothesis?

GMM has argued that sun, moon and stars set in the firmament are impossible because they would not be able to move. By offering the "cable car hypothesis", I have demonstrated an alternate possibility. Therefore, GMM's argument has been disproved. It is indeed possible for the celestial objects to both move and be set in the firmament.

So, as we have a clear reference in which "windows of heaven" is used figuratively, why are you so certain that it must be interpreted literally all the other times it appears? Besides, you've ignored my point about the biblical writers being fully aware that clouds are the source of rain (see my last post for references).

"...open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you", as a whole, is figurative. But in relation to "pouring down", "windows of heaven" is literal.

1] The waters are already in one place (albeit piled on top of each other). How does the waters receding mean that they're being gathered in one place?

Previously, they fill the dome. As they recede, they are gathered into one place (i.e., one part of the dome) at the bottom.

2] A few chapters later in Genesis we come to the account of Noah's Flood. The world would have looked much like your second diagram. The water wouldn't have gone all the way up to the top of the dome, but it would have gone a fair way up in order to cover the mountains. Now, after the Flood we are told a number of times that the waters receded. So if that's what happened in Genesis Chapter 1, why not just tell us?

Because Genesis ch1 is a very brief account of the creation. The fact that other parts of the Bible describe matters in minute detail, doesn't mean that Genesis has to. Joshua 10:13 describes the sun being told to stop, in some depth. I'm sure that, during Genesis, the celestial objects were given their respective patterns of movement--far more complex than a simple stop-start. Yet, these actions weren't all detailed individually, notwithstanding Joshua ch10.

1] "Raqiya'" does not mean "dome". As Darkside has said, to interpret it as "dome" is to mutilate the text.

It doesn't directly mean "dome", anymore than "wall" directly means "68 bricks". But we can interpret a particular reference as pertaining to a dome, just like we can judge a particular usage of "wall" to refer to a wall of 68 bricks.

2] As well as "expanse", the word can indeed refer to an extended solid surface. As Hebrew architecture was angular, this definition would have evoked images of a straight surface.

 

What I hope to do in this post is to clarify my position on expanse. I will explain where the celestial bodies are placed and what the water above the expanse is. I'll also answer some of your points from your last post and explain why a solid-dome interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1, in my opinion, doesn't work.

Darkside_Spirit said: raqiya' was a common architectural term for hammered metal, as GMM has pointed out.

No, read my post again. I never said it refers to hammered metal. It doesn't. It either means "expanse" or an "extended surface". Its relation to hammered metal is very tenuous to say the least. Raqiya' is derived from the verb raqa' (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/OldTestamentHebrew/heb.cgi?search=07554&version=kjv&type=eng) which can mean: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out or stretch. In its beat/stamp meaning, it sometimes used in conjunction with beating out gold (Exodus 39:4) and silver (Jeremiah 10:9). This is part of the meaning of the verb which raqiya' is derived from.

As we can see, the link is very tenuous. Raqiya' doesn't mean hammered metal. If it refers to something solid, it is to an "extended surface". The Hebrews did not use dome-shaped extended surfaces ? their architecture was angular. If you can refer me to a single dome in ancient Hebrew architecture, I will concede this point. A straight extended surface cannot keep water from falling down, therefore the solid meaning of raqiya' simply doesn't work.

Darkside_Spirit said: If raqiya' could only be used in relation to straight surfaces, then the translation would likely say "hammered metal, forming a straight edge". But it doesn't. Look to the 1960s architecture--very angular, very square, very practical. "Concrete" would probably invoke images of a boring, rectangular, flat-sided building. Did that stop people in the 1960s talking about "concrete domes"? Just because a word (in this case, one definition of a word) is usually used to refer to a straight surface, doesn't mean it always does.

You raise an interesting point. But the fact is that domes were in use in the 1960s despite the tendency to use straight surfaces. Domes in ancient Hebrew architecture were simply non-existent. If a surface was not explicitly stated as being curved, or dome-shaped, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that's what the writer intended to convey. Let's go back to the "bunny rabbit" example. What reason is there to assume that the raqiya' is in the shape of a bunny rabbit? The Hebrews didn't use bunny-shaped surfaces in their architecture, so a giant bunny would not immediately spring to mind if someone where to say the word "surface". If the writer wanted to evoke the image of a bunny, surely he would say the raqiya' was bunny-shaped.

Darkside_Spirit said: If the author wanted it to mean "firmament", it would be a sensible word to use. But if he wanted it to mean "expanse", then raqiya' was a strange choice. It would easily be confused with a metal dome--the cosmology subscribed to in Babylon, not too far away. Why not use another word to make the passage less ambiguous?

Why use raqiya' for "expanse"? Er... because that's what the word means. What word would you suggest they use? Raqiya' was not a strange choice for "expanse" ? it means "expanse". It would not have been confused with a metal dome ? raqiya' means neither "metal", nor does it mean "dome". It's like saying it would be easily confused with "giant bunny", when it means neither giant nor bunny.

Darkside_Spirit said: Biblical translations carry the danger of bias. After all, the translation has to be sold, and (without intending to cause offence) most of its saleability comes from people believing that the Bible is the word of God. If there were no Bible-believers, sales of the translations would drop dramatically. Also, the translators themselves are likely to be Bible-believers. Combining these two observations, we can

 

Better late than never!

No, read my post again. I never said it refers to hammered metal. It doesn't. It either means "expanse" or an "extended surface". Its relation to hammered metal is very tenuous to say the least. Raqiya' is derived from the verb raqa' which can mean: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out or stretch. In its beat/stamp meaning, it sometimes used in conjunction with beating out gold (Exodus 39:4) and silver (Jeremiah 10:9). This is part of the meaning of the verb which raqiya' is derived from.

As we can see, the link is very tenuous...

raqa' and raqiya' are of the same root. Working out one from the other isn't a "tenuous link". The English adjective "hammered" is the result of the English verb "to hammer". Similarly, if raqa' includes a "to hammer" meaning, and in conjunction with metal, then raqiya' may well mean "hammered metal".

Raqiya' doesn't mean hammered metal. If it refers to something solid, it is to an "extended surface". The Hebrews did not use dome-shaped extended surfaces - their architecture was angular. If you can refer me to a single dome in ancient Hebrew architecture, I will concede this point. A straight extended surface cannot keep water from falling down, therefore the solid meaning of raqiya' simply doesn't work.

Regardless of Hebrew architecture, the word doesn't necessarily pertain to a straight surface, so it could plausibly be used in relation to a domed one. The creation of the world is architecture on a grand scale, hence the use of architectural vocabulary. By this line of reasoning, Genesis can't describe the creation of the world because there were no worlds in Hebrew architecture. The writer of Genesis would have had reason to use an architectural term, but it would have been taken for granted that the world contained many things that Hebrew buildings didn't feature.

NRSV used "dome" in Genesis 1, and it's still one of the top selling Bibles. Translators seldom cover up "problematic" passages, as we have seen in our discussion of "ends of the earth" and "four corners of the earth".

My point has been entirely evaded. Why are the other quoted translations necessarily more reliable than the NRSV? If we can't trust one translation, why can we trust another?

The Hebrew word for heaven is shamayim. It is derived from an unused root meaning "to be lofty". So "heaven" is essentially a lofty place, either physically speaking or spiritually...

He was left hanging between heaven and earth? Now, unless Absalom was riding on a giant mule, this simply means he was left hanging in mid-air. So "heaven", in this case, is simply referring to the air/expanse around us. This is what I believe the "heaven" of Genesis 1:8 is referring to. (God called the raqiya' "heaven")

Here, we can interpret shamayim as either:

1. Noun/adjective--a word describing a "lofty place"
2. Proper noun--the title of the place where God dwells.

If we interpret the word as the proper noun, then Genesis 1:8 makes perfect sense. Proper nouns are unique identifiers, and so it is appropriate to assign them as "names" for specific things. But if we interpret shamayim in the noun/adjective form, then Genesis 1:8 makes much less sense. Adjectives and nouns are nonspecific--they refer only to classes of entity, not one entity in particular. It makes no more sense to name a lofty place "lofty place" than it does to name a table "table".

The heavens are created in verse 1. The raqiya' that the celestial bodies are placed in is identified as the "raqiya' of the heavens" no less than three times. In fact, every time their raqiya' is mentioned, it is always in reference to the raqiya' of the heavens. The heavens are created in verse 1; a raqiya' is created in the waters in verses 6-7. If the writer had intended us to understand the sun and moon being located in this newly created raqiya', why does he

 

I don't really have anything new to add to the discussion about whether or not the earth is surrounded by a dome. Since we will be discussing the whole of Genesis Chapter 1 later in the debate anyway, I feel that we've covered all we need to on this subject for now. No doubt we'll tie up any loose ends when we study the chapter as a whole.

So, I'll now move on to the next point in your original post:

Darkside_Spirit said: It has stories about the sun and moon being commanded to stand still in terrestrial valleys.

For the benefit of any readers unfamiliar with this account: the background to this story is that after the Gibeonites had made a covenant with the Israelites, various Amorite kings attacked Gibeon. Because of their covenant with them, the Israelites came to the rescue...

As they (the five kings and their armies) fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the LORD threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"O sun, stand still at Gibeon,
And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel. Then Joshua and all Israel with him returned to the camp to Gilgal.(Joshua 10:11-15)

The irony here is that the Amorites were sun worshippers. So the very object of their worship worked against them that day.


The most common criticism of this passage is that it supposedly promotes geocentrism (the belief that the celestial bodies rotate around the earth). This is because it is the sun and moon that are told to stand still, rather than the earth.

A careful reading of the passage shows us that the language of appearance is used. The language of appearance is a common way of referring to the universe around us. The sun rises in the east; the sun sets in the west; it's a full-moon; it's a half-moon; the stars are bright tonight; the sky is so blue: all these are common ways of referring to the seen universe.

This account in Joshua is not told from God's perspective, but rather from Joshua's perspective, so there's no reason why the language of appearance wouldn't have been used.

So let me point to evidence of this. Where does Joshua command the moon to stop? In the valley of Aijalon. That's in the valley ? not over or near ? but actually in. Even with a flat-earth world view, this doesn't work unless the language of appearance is used. During the battle, the moon would've looked like it was coming out of the nearby valley due to the angle they would've seen it at while fighting on the mountains. Therefore Joshua tells the moon to stop in the valley.

If we consider Darkside's diagrams, the earth is covered with a dome, and the moon is connected to the dome. As the moon rises, it's right on the other end of the earth ? thousands of miles beyond the valley of Aijalon. So since Joshua was clearly referring to the moon as in the valley, he must have been using the language of appearance: the moon looked like it was in the valley. Therefore this account in Joshua 10 does not promote the ancient notion of geocentrism.


So what actually happened?

There's been loads of theories posited concerning what actually happened on that extended day. The following are just a sampling of the many theories that have been suggested:

• God stopped time or the universe dead in its tracks
• God provided some form of light refraction
• God altered t

 

The most common criticism of this passage is that it supposedly promotes geocentrism (the belief that the celestial bodies rotate around the earth). This is because it is the sun and moon that are told to stand still, rather than the earth.

A careful reading of the passage shows us that the language of appearance is used... This account in Joshua is not told from God's perspective, but rather from Joshua's perspective, so there's no reason why the language of appearance wouldn't have been used.

This isn't my objection to the passage. I'm concerned not with any implied geocentricity (if that's a word ) but other implications, in the context of what we do now know. My argument is as follows: either we can assume that the event happened under a law of nature we do not yet know about, or we can infer that the event involved a suspension of the laws of nature. The testimony is scientifically insufficient for the former; and the latter proposition is philosophical nonsense.

Option 1: The event was not really a miracle, in that it did not involve the suspension of the natural order. Rather, it took place under natural principles of which we are not yet aware. We'd be taking a similar approach to an 18th century scientist witnessing Hiroshima; he wouldn't pronounce it a violation of nature, just assume that it took place under a natural principle he did not yet understand (in this case, nuclear fission).

The problem with this view is: the more unusual an occurrence is, the greater reliability we must demand for its data. By "unusual", we mean a lack of replication. If we stay within the context of unchanging, natural laws (as opposed to Option 2, which we'll come to in a moment), then replicability is an appropriate criterion. Now, let's take three occurrences which modern science can bring about--and look at them from the point of view of a late 18th century scientist (about 1790-1810):

Novia Zemyla, 30 October 1961

What happened? The USSR detonated a thermonuclear warhead, which produced an explosion equivalent to 50 megatons of TNT. It was the single most powerful bomb ever detonated, and the flash was visible 600 miles away. A mushroom cloud rose forty miles into the stratosphere.

How unusual was it? In nature, not very: C18 forces had bombs at their disposal, and gunpowder had been around for centuries. However, in extent it would have been extremely unusual--familiar with equivalent-sized bombs that could knock down a building, a C18 scientist would be rather impressed with an explosion that could eat East Anglia for breakfast.

What evidence would he require? An extremely high level of evidence. Untold millions of times more powerful than explosives of his era, the C18 scientist would demand almost flawless testimony. If it were not obtained, the scientist would simply reject the occurrence, rather than theorising about what natural principles caused it.

Mast-to-house radio

What is it? I think this one's pretty obvious.

How unusual is it? Substantially unusual. Wireless communication--effectively, sound flying through the air--would seem very advanced to our 18th century scientist. However, it wouldn't be as totally astounding as the explosion over Novia Zemyla.

What evidence would he require? Quite a high level of evidence. If he had seen it working several times, with a number of witnesses, and having taken steps to validate it, he would accept it as having happened, and would then begin to theorise about what natural laws were behind it.

X-ray images of bones

What is it? Again, pretty obvious. Radiation is passed through a part of the human body, which then makes a black mark on a piece of film. Bones prevent the radiation from passing through, leaving a white space. The result is a white-on-black image of the bone.

How unusual is it? Moderately unusual. The scientist would likely know about photography, which could cr

 

Darkside_Spirit said: This isn't my objection to the passage. I'm concerned not with any implied geocentricity

Oops. Well, that'll teach me to be presumptuous.

Darkside_Spirit said: ...but other implications, in the context of what we do now know. My argument is as follows: either we can assume that the event happened under a law of nature we do not yet know about, or we can infer that the event involved a suspension of the laws of nature. The testimony is scientifically insufficient for the former; and the latter proposition is philosophical nonsense.

According to this chapter of Joshua, it was an act of God rather than an act of nature. Therefore, a miracle took place.

Darkside_Spirit said: Option 1: The event was not really a miracle, in that it did not involve the suspension of the natural order. Rather, it took place under natural principles of which we are not yet aware.

Natural laws are unchanging and constant, which gives rise to the principle of replicability. Therefore, within the framework of the laws of nature, the more unusual (i.e., unreplicated) an event is, the greater level of testimony we require. 48-hour days are so unknown to our experience that the level of evidence we demand must be exceedingly high. The Biblical account does not constitute sufficient evidence--and therefore, we should reject it.

As I said in my last post, this chapter deals with a miraculous act of God. The Bible is full of them ? starting with the creation of the world, ending with the resurrection of the dead to eternal life. The question of whether or not miracles are possible has no place in the Science Section of the debate. Science is concerned with the natural order of things; miracles are not.

Darkside_Spirit said: Option 2: In order for the event to occur, natural principles were violated. The problem with this view is as follows: if we remove the principle of unvarying natural laws, we discard our comprehension of reality. Constant natural principles are essential to replicability (using cumulative experience to make predictions). In understanding Joshua 10:12-13, we make the assumption of replicability at every stage. The most fundamental instance of this assumption concerns the Law of Contradiction; from experience, we have inferred that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Were it not for the Law of Contradiction, a statement such as "the Amorites were sun worshippers" or "Then Joshua spoke to the LORD" would be meaningless. Indeed, the entire Bible, and all human knowledge, would be meaningless. The sun and moon could have stopped and moved at the same time. I could be living in England and in New Zealand at the same time. GMM's username could be "Grand_Moff_Monkey" and "Lord Bane" at the same time.

I don't see the relevance of this point. Joshua 10 doesn't deal with a contradiction. What in the chapter is both true and false at the same time?

Darkside_Spirit said: To put this simply, GMM said: "however you read Joshua 10, a miracle took place". The statement asserts that it is possible to violate natural principles, by accepting the notion of miracles. In order for the statement to have any meaning, we must accept replicability (by which we know that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect). Yet, replicability requires inviolable natural laws. So the statement is a paradox; it disqualifies itself, as does any statement asserting the violability of nature.

Then we may as well stop the whole debate right here. Since miracles by their very nature either enhance or ignore natural laws, they cannot be replicated.

Darkside_Spirit said: To summarise:

1. Philosophically, it is nonsensical to claim that natural laws can be violated.

2. Therefore, we may apply replicability--prediction from experience--to Joshua 10:12-13.

 

Why have I brought philosophy into the science section of the debate? Well, because GMM employed a philosophical defence (miracles). My objection to Joshua 10:12-13 is that, in the absence of highly reliable testimony that the Bible does not provide, scientific experience is sufficient for a disproof. GMM has argued that science does not apply to Joshua; and that brings us into the realm of philosophy. It's my job to argue that "the Bible is discredited by science", and GMM's to argue that "the Bible is supported [or at least, not discredited] by science". Working out whether science applies in the first place is included in those descriptions.

Oops. Well, that'll teach me to be presumptuous.

Don't worry. I should have made my objections clearer.

According to this chapter of Joshua, it was an act of God rather than an act of nature. Therefore, a miracle took place.

Well, there's no such thing as an "act of nature". Nature is the framework of principles within which events take place. Taking the above statement to mean: "it was an act of God, a supernatural being, rather than an act within the natural framework", this just leads back to the argument that Joshua 10:12-13 was accomplished by the violation of natural principles. It was caused by an entity (God) outside natural law; it necessitated the contravention of natural law. It boils down to the same thing.

As I said in my last post, this chapter deals with a miraculous act of God. The Bible is full of them - starting with the creation of the world, ending with the resurrection of the dead to eternal life. The question of whether or not miracles are possible has no place in the Science Section of the debate. Science is concerned with the natural order of things; miracles are not.

(i) Whether science applies to Joshua 10:12-13 does indeed have a place in the science section, as I've argued above. The miracle argument is an attempt to disapply science.

(ii) Science does concern itself with making predictions, and how entities will behave under certain circumstances. The larger the experience base, the more reliable the prediction.

Option 2: In order for the event to occur, natural principles were violated. The problem with this view is as follows: if we remove the principle of unvarying natural laws, we discard our comprehension of reality. Constant natural principles are essential to replicability (using cumulative experience to make predictions). In understanding Joshua 10:12-13, we make the assumption of replicability at every stage. The most fundamental instance of this assumption concerns the Law of Contradiction; from experience, we have inferred that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Were it not for the Law of Contradiction, a statement such as "the Amorites were sun worshippers" or "Then Joshua spoke to the LORD" would be meaningless. Indeed, the entire Bible, and all human knowledge, would be meaningless. The sun and moon could have stopped and moved at the same time. I could be living in England and in New Zealand at the same time. GMM's username could be "Grand_Moff_Monkey" and "Lord Bane" at the same time.

I don't see the relevance of this point. Joshua 10 doesn't deal with a contradiction. What in the chapter is both true and false at the same time?

The Law of Contradiction states that: a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.

For a statement to have meaning, the Law of Contradiction is essential. Otherwise, the Amorites could be both sun worshippers and not sun worshippers. Any statement in the Bible could be both true, and false.

The Law of Contradiction is a natural principle, without which reality is senseless. Yet, its only backing comes from replicability.

If replicability is disapplied, then all its consequents are disapplied--including the Law of Contrad

 

My summary is as follows:

God is not a natural being - he is supernatural - and as such he is not subject to natural laws. According to the Bible, he himself created the universe and all its natural laws. It is therefore absurd to say that he can't temporarily alter those laws if and when he chooses.

If the events of Genesis 1 are true (that God created the entire universe out of nothing), then there is no logical reason to suggest that the events of Joshua 10 couldn't have happened.

Miracles are an enhancement or an override of natural laws, and as such they cannot be replicated. Indeed if they could be replicated, that would invalidate them as being miracles.



So, moving on to your next point in your original post:

Heaven is in the clouds

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

If we're to discuss whether or not heaven is in the clouds, we firstly have to clarify what we mean by heaven. As already discussed, heaven can refer to many different things.

Heaven can refer to the air around us, and to the sky (2 Samuel 18:9; Genesis 1:8)

Heaven can refer to outer space ? the home of the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 19:4; Jeremiah 8:2)

Heaven can even apply to the spiritual realm of life right here on earth (Ephesians 6:12)


However, it most commonly applies to God's dwelling place (Matthew 6:9), sometimes referred to as the "third heaven" or "paradise":

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

Notice that Paul's not even sure if his friend (who was caught up to paradise) went to heaven physically ? or if it was purely spiritual.

Ask 20 different Christians about the nature and location of this Heaven, and in all likelihood you'll get 20 different answers. Unfortunately, it's not like when Obi-Wan got the exact coordinates of Kamino from Dex, so he knew where to look. As much as I'd like to just point to a set of verses and say exactly where Heaven is and what form it takes, I can't do that. The reason is because the Bible doesn't tell us where it is, whether it's purely spiritual, or both physical and spiritual.

The Bible repeatedly tells us that physical locations are insufficient for God to dwell in:

"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! (1 Kings 8:27)

Paul confesses that he is unable to fully grasp the wonders of the afterlife:

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

When Jesus tells his disciples he will prepare a place for them in Heaven, Thomas makes it clear that he doesn?t know where Heaven is, nor does he know the way there. All Jesus tells him is that He Himself is the way to the Father, not an exact location of where the Father actually is:

"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
"In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.
"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.
"And you know the way where I am going."
Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not kno

 

In all honesty Darkside, I think this is just a simple case of you having misread the verses from Thessalonians. Let's see them again...

From what I can see, Jesus will come down from heaven and we'll meet him in the clouds in the air. So the clouds are basically a meeting point rather than Christ's location prior to his decent.

As I said before, the Bible doesn't specify the exact nature or location of Heaven, but what I can say with certainty is that the Bible nowhere says that Heaven is in the clouds.

Ahh...no. It's not a case of my having misread the verses; it's a case of coming down from the clouds strongly suggesting that heaven is in or above them. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states, in part: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven", and goes on to say that people will "meet the Lord in the air".

1. There is a descent, suggesting that heaven is physically "up there". If this descent were not physical, Paul would not confuse the matter by talking about events high up in the air.
2. Christ appears in the clouds, or high up in the air, following the descent.

Combining these two observations with the fact that many ancient cosmologies did see heaven as being "up there", we can infer that heaven is in or above the clouds. Regarding the physical/spiritual situation, two possibilities (other than heaven in/above the clouds) present themselves:

(i) Heaven is a physical place, located in outer space
In that case, why "come down from heaven"? Up and down only have meaning when applied to earth. If heaven is not up in the sky, necessitating a descent, but is far off in space, necessitating an intergalacting journey, then why not say "come across from heaven", "travel out of heaven" or something to that effect? If Christ comes in the clouds following an intergalactic journey, then he hasn't come from heaven: he's come down from the earth's orbit.

(ii) Heaven is a spiritual state, or another dimension
In that case, why "come down from heaven", or conduct any activities in the air at all? "Coming down from heaven", appearing in the clouds, etc would only serve to cause confusion with the cosmologies that did have a high-altitude physical heaven.

 

Darkside_Spirit said: Ahh...no. It's not a case of my having misread the verses; it's a case of coming down from the clouds strongly suggesting that heaven is in or above them. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states, in part: "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven", and goes on to say that people will "meet the Lord in the air".

Ok, let me make my point a bit clearer. If I say that someone will descend from Scotland, and I'll meet them in Bristol, am I saying that Scotland is in Bristol? If Heaven is actually located in the clouds, why would Christ descend from the clouds? According to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we are caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So if he descends from the clouds and we ascend to the clouds, surely we'll miss each other. Why would he need to descend at all, if he's there to begin with?

The verse doesn't say he descends from the clouds, but that he descends from heaven.

Darkside_Spirit said: 1. There is a descent, suggesting that heaven is physically "up there".

It's not really as clear-cut as that I'm afraid. The Greek word used for descend is
katabaino and it's every bit as flexible as our English equivalent ("come down" or "go down").

Consider the following cases where katabaino is used. It is used in the same way as we would say, "Let's go down to Brighton for the weekend". Is Brighton directly beneath us?

And the teachers of the law who came down (katabaino) from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons." (Mark 3:22)

Then he went down (katabaino) to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. (Luke 2:51)

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down (katabaino) from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down (katabaino) the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side." (Luke 10:30-31)

After this he went down (katabaino) to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. (John 2:12)

When this man heard that Jesus had arrived (katabaino) in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.
"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."
The royal official said, "Sir, come down (katabaino) before my child dies." (John 4:47-49)

When evening came, his disciples went down (katabaino) to the lake, (John 6:16)

When they arrived (katabaino), they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15)

And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down (katabaino) into the water and Philip baptized him. (Acts 8:38)

And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down (katabaino) to Attalia. (Acts 14:25)

As we can see, katabaino doesn't necessarily refer to a literal, straight, downward movement.

Darkside_Spirit said: If this descent were not physical, Paul would not confuse the matter by talking about events high up in the air.

I do not doubt at all that Christ's second coming will be physical. That's not the issue here. The nature (and location) of the Heaven which Christ comes from is the issue.

Let's look at another one of Paul?s letters:

What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended (katabaino) to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended (katabaino) is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe. (Ephesians 4:9-10)

So after Christ ascended higher than all the heavens (not into the clouds), he filled the universe. God the Son is omnipresent, just like