RE: [asa] water above the solid dome in Genesis

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Sun Apr 13 2008 - 14:05:45 EDT

Hi Phil, you wrote:
 
"For example, in Genesis 1 we see waters above the heavens, but in
Genesis 2 we see a mist rising from the surface of the earth to become
the rain (I'm following Mark Futato's reading, which I find very
compelling). Indeed, it's hard to believe that the Hebrews by the time
of the Exodus wouldn't have figured that rain comes out of clouds, yet."
 
"Mist" here like "slime" in the Gen. 11 description of the Tower of
Babel is another example of translation errors in the 1611 KJV that are
changed in newer translations, however, some good, some not so good.
The Septuagint uses "fountain" which makes better sense and alludes to
irrigation. The Septuagint also includes Cainan in Genesis 11 whom Luke
included in the genealogy of Christ but is missing in the Masoretic
text. Here is the Septuagint you can refer to:
 
http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/
 
Dick Fischer. author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of philtill@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:04 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] water above the solid dome in Genesis
 
Dick made a great point on another thread that there coudn't have been
"one" ANE view for 3000 years. I think that the discussion over
accommodation in the Bible is hampered by the assumption that the OT
itself represents just one ANE view. But since the text is a redaction
of a number of older texts, and since some of them were probably _much_
older than others, we shouldn't expect to see just one ANE view
represented.

For example, in Genesis 1 we see waters above the heavens, but in
Genesis 2 we see a mist rising from the surface of the earth to become
the rain (I'm following Mark Futato's reading, which I find very
compelling). Indeed, it's hard to believe that the Hebrews by the time
of the Exodus wouldn't have figured that rain comes out of clouds, yet.
It's hard to believe that the Babylonians wouldn't have figured it out
by then, either. In the Flood account, which might be based on a very
ancient tradition, we see the classic ANE description of rain coming out
of windows from the solid dome.

In order to figure out where God was accommodating an ANE view, we would
have to know where the authors actually held that view, or where they
were referring to it via idiom or tradition, or where they referred to
it for literary or other purposes. Accommodation would only be
important in the first case. This may be difficult to sort out since we
don't know the details of the history of compilation and editing
differnet parts of the text. In the flood account, I think it's safe to
say that we see accommodation. In Genesis 2, I don't think the author
held an ANE view at all regarding rain. What of Genesis 1? Was the
author "modern" and only using ANE language for the literary value in
the construction of the two triads using "classical" language, or did he
himself really hold that view? I think it depends partly on when he was
writing and what he thought his audience would understand. I thi nk
these considerations make the discussion about accommodation more
complicated but more interesting and satisfying.

Phil
  _____

Get the MapQuest
<http://www.mapquest.com/toolbar?NCID=mpqmap00030000000003> Toolbar,
Maps, Traffic, Directions & More!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 13 14:08:31 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 13 2008 - 14:08:31 EDT