Heat Problem?

From: PHSEELY@aol.com
Date: Sat Aug 19 2000 - 12:25:18 EDT

  • Next message: Keith B Miller: "Johnson interview"

    AR: Since this was written by Moses and not by redactors under slavish
    influence of the surrounding cultures, I find this ["Gen 7:11, 8:1,2 Against
    the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Tradition [Die Welt des Orients 9
    (1978) 242-248]. The Ugaritic lines in Aqhat C:1:45, 46 parallel Deut 33:13,
    saying of a drought: "No dew. No rain. No welling up of the Deep."]

    PS: Since the phraseology in Deut 33:13, "...For the precious things of
    heaven, for the dew, And for the deep that coucheth beneath" is very close
    to the phraseology in Aqhat, and since Ugaritic and Hebrew are very closely
    related languages, and since so many words and phrases in the Hebrew OT are
    parallel with and have the same meaning as Ugaritic words and phrases that
    they take up two volumes (Ras Shamra Parallels), it is highly probable that
    "thm" in Ugaritic meant the same thing as "thm" (tehom) in Hebrew.
    As to the Mesopotamian culture, Gen 1-11 is rife with evident ties to
    Mesopotamian motifs and traditions. Even your own "colophon theory" is
    dependent upon the idea that the "toledoths" in Genesis are based on
    cuneiform colophons, that is, Mesopotamian traditions of writing.
    The above offers concrete evidence that the meaning of "thm" (tehom) in the
    OT can be illuminated by reference to the use of thm in both Ugaritic and
    Where is your evidence that although the surrounding cultures had a concept
    of the thm as a sea underlying the earth, Moses had a modern concept of the
    earth as (1) a globe and (2) with the sea embedded in it and not under it?

    AR: The LXX [with its translation of Deut 33:13 as "deeps of fountains"] is
    one of the lest reliable translations of the Bible, highly influenced by the
    Greek culture and philosophy of the time it was translated.

    PS: Because the Torah was highly exalted, the translation of the first five
    books was carefully done. And, it should be noted that they followed the
    CONTEXT of Deut 33:13. The phrase, "And for the deep that coucheth beneath"
    is preceded by a reference to "dew" which time and again is associated in the
    OT with agricultural blessing, and is immediately followed by "and for the
    precious things of the fruits of the sun" another reference to agricultural
    blessing. The "deep that coucheth beneath" is, therefore, _contextually_ a
    reference to a source of water that will give agricultural growth and
    blessing. It cannot, therefore, be a reference to the Mediterranean, Galilean
    or Dead Seas which were not sources of water for agriculture. "the deep that
    coucheth beneath" must be a reference to the sea beneath the earth.

    AR: This [Ezekiel 31:3, 4 speaking of a cedar tree says, "The waters
     it, the deep (Tehom) made it to grow…" This is clearly the ocean beneath the
     earth. No one would say of a tree either then or now that "the
     or Gallilean sea made it to grow."] is symbolic and metaphoric poetry. One
    would hardly expect to find the real meaning of Tehom here.

    PS: It is only by understanding the real (literal) meaning of a poetic phrase
    that you can grasp the symbolic and metaphoric meaning. "I am the good
    Shepherd," 'I am the vine" are symbolic metaphoric statements, but their
    meaning is contingent upon the literal meaning of "shepherd" and "vine." You
    are rationaliziing away Ezek 31:3, 4.
      AR: Deut 8:7, KJV "...a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths
    [tehoms] that spring out of valleys and hills:" This can just as well read
    "... of brooks of water, of fountains and rivers/lakes that spring out of
    valleys and hills." Tehom can be any deep place, not just seas and oceans.
    So, it is very likely a reference to the Jordan river and Galilee and Dead
    Seas which it connects.

    PS: Again, you ignore the CONTEXT. Deut 8:7 is immediately followed by a
    reference to agricultural products, "wheat and barley, and vines and
    fig-trees etc." The emphasis on water in 8:7 is because it is such an
    important element in producing agricultural products. But, unlike the sources
    of water named in the verse, the Jordan river, the Sea of Galilee and the
    Dead Sea were not used as sources of water for producing agricultural
    products. (See Bible dictionaries on "agriculture" and "irrigation.")
    Contextually, the "tehoms" can only refer to fountains fed by the tehom (sea)
    beneath the earth.
     AR: What was Jesus opinion of the Jewish writings other than the Bible?
    Matt15:3, 6, 9 "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your
    tradition? ... Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your
    tradition. ... They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught
    by men." I would not put much faith in the correctness of this Jewish
    commentary [Genesis Rabbah, which defines fountains in Gen 8:2 as earthly,
    not oceanic fountains] because it is likely influenced by the culture in
    which it was written.

    PS: Jesus was certainly talking about their views of religion, not the
    natural world. He, in fact, credited them with correct understanding of the
    natural world (Matt 16:3) Further, my point with Genesis Rabbah was not that
    it proves the fountains of Gen 7:11/8:2 were terrrestrial, but that this
    interpretation goes back as far as an understanding of these verses can be
    traced, whereas your interpretation is a novelty that no one, scholar or
    saint, found in the Bible until recent times; and, even now is a rarity.
    And, this fact has the clear implication that your interpretation does not
    rest upon a straightforward reading of Scripture.
    AR: Hasel did not do a study of the use of the word 'fountain' in the Bible
    and so his analysis is flawed.

    PS: Hasel's whole paper,"The Fountains of the Deep" [Origins (1974)
    1(2):67-72] was aimed at interpreting the the meaning of the fountains in Gen
    7:11/8:2. And, his conclusion that they referred to everyday terrestrial
    fountains fed by subterranean water is not only the historic interpretation
    of the Church but the conclusion of virtually every OT scholar in our
    time---except within the insular world of creation science. What makes
    Hasel's conclusion so relevant is that he believed in a global Flood and
    hence had the same bias you have. He would have found that the fountains
    were oceanic if the data had not compelled him to say otherwise.

    It seems to me you have systematically ignored the biblical context in your
    interpretations of the verses of Scripture which show that the fountains of
    the great deep were terrrestrial fountains fed by the sea below the earth
    (upon which the earth was founded, Ps 24:2); and, you have done this to avoid
    having the Word of God falsify your theory. If you really want to follow the
    Bible, you need to show contextual evidence for your interpretations. Just
    stating your position is not enough. In particular,
    1. Where does the OT say or infer that "earth" is spherical, a globe?
    2. Where is your evidence that although the surrounding cultures understood
    the earth to be floating on the tehom, Moses had a modern view of the ocean
    and understood it as you interpret: as the ocean embedded in a spherical
    3. Where does the OT say or infer that the fountains of the Deep (Gen 7:11)
    were opened not at the surface of the earth, but at the bottom of the ocean?
    4. Where does the OT say or infer that the Flood was caused by meteorites or


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 19 2000 - 12:25:37 EDT