Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Ken]

How would you translate God saying "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." into your view of the local flood?

How do you explain talking rocks?

You did not answer my question. I answered your questions directly, now it is time for you to answer questions directly.

It is unfortunate that the English translators continued the pagan and early Hebrew belief in a solid dome by transliterating the Latin firmamentum into the word "firmament". I don't know why they did that but the Septuagint's stereoma would also point to something that is probably solid.
The Hebrew raqiya, on the other hand, does not need to be something solid, but could be translated "expanse", as some modern translations do. This translation could then very well be considered as a "space" if one were biased in that direction. So without a doubt the idea of a "bowl" or a "dome" was very common, but I guess I am not convinced that is what the writer intended.
But maybe the ancients knew something that we didn't because it is probably only in relatively modern times that we came to understand the perils of angles of re-entry for space vehicles. So in one sense the "bowl" or "dome", even though not impermeable, is there, and gives us safety from most debris coming from outside.
I'm not sure exactly what is being referred to here as the cosmos, but note that according to the narrative, sun, moon and stars were not created till several days after the "bowl". I'm not sure where we consider them to have been placed if we follow the "bowl" scenario. On the other hand, if we use the Hebrew word and translate it as expanse or something similar, then we can turn to numerous OT passages where God is said to have "stretched out" the stars and the heavens. That, I believe, would put the cosmos where it belongs.
And if we take the idea of God "stretching out" the stars and heavens one step further, perhaps it is saying that the universe is expanding.

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

[Soloist]

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

I believe God protected the intent of the Scripture. For example, we really have no idea what Goliath's height really was, but it simply isn't relevant to anything. Its sort of like who was at the tomb of Jesus first... Does it matter for anything?

If, the Scriptures had been altered from the original, I think Jesus quoting from it as authoritative is good enough for me. For the last 2000 years the Bible has effectively remained unaltered. There of course is some debate on specific texts as to which one is superior but for the passage of Genesis, there isn't debate on what the text says to my knowledge. The Septuagint which of course we may never know exactly how it came about, was quoted by Jesus and it generally lines up with the Masoretic text outside of some alterations the Jews made to it. This is recorded in early church history. The Dead sea scrolls generally match the Septuagint but not perfectly.

I certainly never claimed that every jot and tiddle is perfect. I do however, believe that the intent is perfect and is protected and transmitted through every honest translators intent. Neto could easily comment here as he knows more about translation efforts.

If I was to ask my Hebrew scholar friend what the intent was, he would tell me what he was taught. This is to a certain degree the problem with elevating the koine Greek as somehow superior to English. How do we know the man who translated the meaning of the exact word was correct? everyone is taught the meaning and there is very little way to recover the exact intended meaning of a specific word. This changes over time of course and depending on context often illuminates the meaning. Specific words such as Pornia are very difficult to translate the exact meaning of what it meant. There is contemporary writing of the time that also uses the word, but generally people seem to reject that as impacting the Scripture. Most of this is really above my head delving into textual criticism which I chose not to dig into. I am content accepting the Septuagint and the Vulgate as authoritative if I ever question an interpretation of a modern text.

[silentreader]

You did not answer my question. I answered your questions directly, now it is time for you to answer questions directly.

It is unfortunate that the English translators continued the pagan and early Hebrew belief in a solid dome by transliterating the Latin firmamentum into the word "firmament". I don't know why they did that but the Septuagint's stereoma would also point to something that is probably solid.
The Hebrew raqiya, on the other hand, does not need to be something solid, but could be translated "expanse", as some modern translations do. This translation could then very well be considered as a "space" if one were biased in that direction. So without a doubt the idea of a "bowl" or a "dome" was very common, but I guess I am not convinced that is what the writer intended.
But maybe the ancients knew something that we didn't because it is probably only in relatively modern times that we came to understand the perils of angles of re-entry for space vehicles. So in one sense the "bowl" or "dome", even though not impermeable, is there, and gives us safety from most debris coming from outside.
I'm not sure exactly what is being referred to here as the cosmos, but note that according to the narrative, sun, moon and stars were not created till several days after the "bowl". I'm not sure where we consider them to have been placed if we follow the "bowl" scenario. On the other hand, if we use the Hebrew word and translate it as expanse or something similar, then we can turn to numerous OT passages where God is said to have "stretched out" the stars and the heavens. That, I believe, would put the cosmos where it belongs.
And if we take the idea of God "stretching out" the stars and heavens one step further, perhaps it is saying that the universe is expanding.

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

Would you insist that God wanted a Latin word used to translate Hebrew into English so that the "intellectuals" of the 21st century have more excuses to mock the veracity of the Bible?

[Ken]

It is unfortunate that the English translators continued the pagan and early Hebrew belief in a solid dome by transliterating the Latin firmamentum into the word "firmament". I don't know why they did that but the Septuagint's stereoma would also point to something that is probably solid.
The Hebrew raqiya, on the other hand, does not need to be something solid, but could be translated "expanse", as some modern translations do. This translation could then very well be considered as a "space" if one were biased in that direction. So without a doubt the idea of a "bowl" or a "dome" was very common, but I guess I am not convinced that is what the writer intended.
But maybe the ancients knew something that we didn't because it is probably only in relatively modern times that we came to understand the perils of angles of re-entry for space vehicles. So in one sense the "bowl" or "dome", even though not impermeable, is there, and gives us safety from most debris coming from outside.
I'm not sure exactly what is being referred to here as the cosmos, but note that according to the narrative, sun, moon and stars were not created till several days after the "bowl". I'm not sure where we consider them to have been placed if we follow the "bowl" scenario. On the other hand, if we use the Hebrew word and translate it as expanse or something similar, then we can turn to numerous OT passages where God is said to have "stretched out" the stars and the heavens. That, I believe, would put the cosmos where it belongs.
And if we take the idea of God "stretching out" the stars and heavens one step further, perhaps it is saying that the universe is expanding.

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

Would you insist that God wanted a Latin word used to translate Hebrew into English so that the "intellectuals" of the 21st century have more excuses to mock the veracity of the Bible?

I’m not insisting on anything. I’m not the one parsing Genesis for literalist interpretations of the shape of the earth and the form of the heavens.

[Wayne in Maine]

It is unfortunate that the English translators continued the pagan and early Hebrew belief in a solid dome by transliterating the Latin firmamentum into the word "firmament". I don't know why they did that but the Septuagint's stereoma would also point to something that is probably solid.
The Hebrew raqiya, on the other hand, does not need to be something solid, but could be translated "expanse", as some modern translations do. This translation could then very well be considered as a "space" if one were biased in that direction. So without a doubt the idea of a "bowl" or a "dome" was very common, but I guess I am not convinced that is what the writer intended..."

That is a modern understanding of the term that accommodates the "scientific" observation that there is no solid dome over the earth. Ancient Hebrews (raqia is after all an ancient Hebrew word) and even early Christians understood this to refer to a solid surface:

"Jews speculated as to what material the firmament was made of: clay or copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They differentiated between the firmament and the empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab. 4.3.a; 2 Apoc. Bar. 21.4). They tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. 49a). "Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' “

See also: THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE

[silentreader]

It is unfortunate that the English translators continued the pagan and early Hebrew belief in a solid dome by transliterating the Latin firmamentum into the word "firmament". I don't know why they did that but the Septuagint's stereoma would also point to something that is probably solid.
The Hebrew raqiya, on the other hand, does not need to be something solid, but could be translated "expanse", as some modern translations do. This translation could then very well be considered as a "space" if one were biased in that direction. So without a doubt the idea of a "bowl" or a "dome" was very common, but I guess I am not convinced that is what the writer intended..."

That is a modern understanding of the term that accommodates the "scientific" observation that there is no solid dome over the earth. Ancient Hebrews (raqia is after all an ancient Hebrew word) and even early Christians understood this to refer to a solid surface:

"Jews speculated as to what material the firmament was made of: clay or copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They differentiated between the firmament and the empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab. 4.3.a; 2 Apoc. Bar. 21.4). They tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. 49a). "Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Gen 1:6, said, 'the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant' (Hexameron, FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament was used 'to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below' “

See also: THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE

That depends what you mean by modern, Young's Literal Translation uses "expanse".

[Neto]

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

This is somewhat off-topic already, and I considered spinning this off into a separate thread on the Inspiration of Scripture, found that there already was one called Inspiration, and realizing that I do not have the time necessary to devote to this at this time, will just comment here that the traditional "Evangelical" view of Scripture states that the "original autographs were perfect in inspiration and accuracy". When I wrote my personal doctrinal statement for application to Wycliffe Bible Translators, I balked at saying this, not because I didn't (and don't) believe it, but I felt that since none of the originals are known to be in existence, it was/is more important to say something in regard to what we actually have. My initial statement (which did not satisfy them, and raised some red flags, I think, was to take the Mennonite position which simply states that "the Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and practice".
But this is the reason we do textual comparison, and evaluate the different readings on the basis of the best determined accuracy of the different readings in each text. One of the principles in this science is that the most difficult reading needs to be given a most careful consideration, because it is much more likely that the copyist would "correct" the text in the direction of making it more like other similar Scripture contexts, or according to logic, than the other way around. So this is why the Textus Receptus (or "Majority Text', on which the KJV is based) often adds a phrase or so to a given text to make it more closely echo another text. Or, as in the case of the number of men who are said to have called on Paul when Cornelius sent for him, the most authentic reading is probably 'two', and not the logical 'three', since Cornelius actually sent three men. (Two servants, and a soldier.) Biblical interpretation must follow the same rule - that one should not just take the seemingly "most apparent" understanding w/o careful consideration of the more difficult, but possibly correct meaning. I think that this principle applies to the case being discussed here, because evidence of how people in the past have understood a certain text of Scripture in not proof of its intended meaning. If that were the way Scripture should be interpreted, then we would need to bow to every current understanding of Scripture, as the people in the past are no better than people now. Scripture has a meaning, and it does not change. If it does, then we are a most miserable lot, and we do not have any actual Scripture.

So is the translator inspired in how he or she renders the text? Every honest one will plead with God to guide him or her in every choice of wording. It is a weight of responsibility that is accepted, and it in every reputable translation organization it is guarded by a translation consultant & vetting process meant to catch errors in word choice which might mislead the reader, and also find errors in the understanding of the translator(s). We submit ourselves to this process just as we submit ourselves to the community of Christ. But in translation work, we attempt as much as possible to go back to the closest thing we have to the original, and strive to give the meaning of that text, not our perception of what it "should say", or what we want it to say.

In regards to the Septuagint, the fact that it is frequently quoted in the New Testament (or its influence seen) is testimony to the attitude of the NT writers, that they did not have the same idea of inspiration and veracity as that taken by proponents of the Quaran, for instance. But is it totally accurate? Probably not. Was it recognized by the Jews as completely correct? Apparently not. It is, however, I believe, a common misconception that the NT "always" or "almost always" follows it. It doesn't. The Septuagint is in some ways a somewhat loose translation. This can be especially noted in the way the Name is rendered inconsistently. (And I have the same critique of the KJV.)

As also mentioned in this thread, Greek is no 'perfect language of angels', as some earlier scholars thought. (Knowledge of it had so fallen out of access that some actually thought it was no earthly language at all.) Study of the Greek will not answer every question that must be answered for every translator working in every language, either. (An example from Banawa is that Greek does not distinguish between the inclusive and exclusive 1st person plural - "we", which must be decided by the translator to the best of his or her ability in languages, like Banawa, that have this distinction.)

[silentreader]

Does not the belief in a literal Bible also require belief that God also guided every subsequent translation and transcription? Including those into English? And therefore, if the English translation says “firmament” then that is what God meant? Otherwise only the original written text put on the page (or scroll) by Moses would have been inspired and directed by God and every subsequent re-copying and translation done by ordinary men would be subject to error. And after 3000 or so years it would be like an endless game of telephone and who knows what the original texts said?

Would you insist that God wanted a Latin word used to translate Hebrew into English so that the "intellectuals" of the 21st century have more excuses to mock the veracity of the Bible?

I’m not insisting on anything. I’m not the one parsing Genesis for literalist interpretations of the shape of the earth and the form of the heavens.

Parsing, eh? I am insisting that where there are supposed discrepancies it is useful to give them careful study in order to discern truth.

[Ken]

Would you insist that God wanted a Latin word used to translate Hebrew into English so that the "intellectuals" of the 21st century have more excuses to mock the veracity of the Bible?

I’m not insisting on anything. I’m not the one parsing Genesis for literalist interpretations of the shape of the earth and the form of the heavens.

Parsing, eh? I am insisting that where there are supposed discrepancies it is useful to give them careful study in order to discern truth.

What I meant was. If, for example you want to understand the shape of the earth and the composition of the heavens above, use a telescope rather than spending a lot of time trying to discern the original meaning of the biblical term “firmament” and other biblical terms from Genesis that describe the shape of the earth and composition of the sky.

[Falco Underhill]

C.S. Lewis believed God created man by evolution and then gifted man with a soul.

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself [….] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness […] In perfect cyclic movement, being, power and joy descended from God to man in the form of gift and returned from man to God in the form of obedient love and ecstatic adoration. (Lewis, Problem of Pain 65)

C.S. Lewis also upheld a view called methodological naturalism, the view that the methods of science can only arrive at naturalistic explanations. He wrote,

Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, ‘I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,’ […] Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is [….] But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. (Mere 22)

http://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis ... -design/3/

I suppose these views are similar to my own.

I might quibble with C. S. Lewis's view that questions about God are not a matter for science though. The modern idea that only studies that use the experimental methods in its investigations qualify as science is erroneous, in my view. Plato's dialectics is a real science that can address that, imo. But I won't address that here further cause that would bunny trail.