OT scholars and Hebraists disagree on the meaning of raqia in Gen 1. John Walton used to think it denoted a solid dome, but changed his mind. Nicholas Petersen has his own theory. Some versions render it as an "expanse." But what, exactly, does that mean–or refer to?
One reason for the disagreement is that we don't have enough occurrences of the word to nail down the meaning. In addition, the meaning is contextual. How does it function in relation to the other elements (e.g. sky, heavens)?
Here's a suggestion: what if raqia is a synonym for "space." Suppose it denotes the space between rainclouds and terrestrial bodies of water (e.g. lakes, oceans, rivers)? Suppose we translate Genesis this way:
6 And God said, “Let there be space in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the space and separated the waters that were under the space from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
If you think about it, that would make perfect sense to the original audience. After all, "space," air, is what separates rainclouds from terrestrial bodies of water. It's the spacious air in-between seems to keep them apart. And that's what the birds fly in.
That's what ancient Hebrews saw when they went outside. That's what they experience. On the one hand there's water at ground level. Bodies of water on the surface of the earth. On the other hand, there's the water that comes down from the sky. Rain or snow from clouds up above. And in-between is empty space.
I think we miss this if we think of the sky or atmosphere as something up above. Overhead. But that's just a part of the space. The space is up and down and all around. Birds fly through space. They fly up from a tree, shrub, grass, or bare ground. And they fly down from to a tree, shrub, grass, or bare ground. Although the sky is the limit, the space begins at ground level. That's the space we freely move through. That's our natural element, in contrast to bodies of water.
In modern parlance, "space" refers to "outer space," but here, space refers to the airy buffer between lakes, oceans, and rainclouds.
Sure, there's space above the clouds, but the description in Genesis is from the perspective of a ground-based observer.
raqia root word rq has etymological links to Phoenician and Akkadian words for “bowl” or “metal kettle”. This combines the ideas of a curved dome-like shape and thin metal sheets just like the neigbouring nations thought of heaven. But we need to reinterpret the Bible according to our modern scientific understanding and make it sound more relevant today, so let's call it a space.
ReplyDeleteThat also sound better "from the perspective of a ground-based observer" as surely there we ground base observers before God created ground base observers.
"raqia root word rq has etymological links to Phoenician and Akkadian words for 'bowl' or 'metal kettle'. This combines the ideas of a curved dome-like shape and thin metal sheets just like the neigbouring nations thought of heaven."
DeleteAnd muscatel has etymological links to the Sanskrit word (muska) for "scrotum" or "testicle". So I guess a bottle of Muscatel is a phallic symbol.
"But we need to reinterpret the Bible according to our modern scientific understanding and make it sound more relevant today, so let's call it a space."
My argument didn't appeal to modern scientific knowledge. But thanks for demonstrating your chronic lack of reading comprehension.
"That also sound better "from the perspective of a ground-based observer" as surely there we ground base observers before God created ground base observers."
A red herring, since the narrative was written for the benefit of earthlings, and therefore assumes their vantage-point.
I believe Calvin interpreted that way. He believes the waters above were clouds.
ReplyDeleteCool. Steve blocked my comment and build his own strawman. Non-Christians are so scary...
ReplyDelete"I’ve previously noted that this dome (raqiya) is simply the sky. Now, we can conceivably take the sky, in isolation, as extending infinitely into space—but it is difficult to read the text this way in view of how the sky and the raqiya are identified as one and the same, and the raqiya has birds flying through it and water “over” or “above” it. It’s hard to interpret raqiya as anything other than a phenomenological term for the expanse of air as it appears from earth—sometimes referring to the air separating the waters above (clouds) from the waters below (sea), and sometimes implying the atmosphere more generally. The point is that it describes how the sky appears from the perspective of Miriam."
ReplyDeletehttp://bnonn.com/how-would-a-hebrew-have-pictured-genesis-1/
It's like you don't even read everything I write. For shame.
Great minds think alike. Truth be told, Augustine stole some of my best material. I've sued him in absentia for intellectual property theft. However, it's hard to find a bounty hunter with a passport to heaven, so thus far Augustine has eluded justice.
Delete