Changes

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting:  "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water".  I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist?  Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally?  When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth:  The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat.  This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis.  But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible.  We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah.  W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes:  "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally.  They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning.  They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach.  They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text."  An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew.  It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense.  Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6.  Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object?  Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"?  If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that?  I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld

I found the comment to Genesis 1:6, about the expanse, most interesting:  "The ancient Hebrews believed that the sky was in fact a solid object that separated two classes of water".  I commented before that, understanding that that is what the ancient Hebrews believed, why then do creation scientists seek an explanation for this expanse that we now know doesn't exist?  Put another way, since we can no longer believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how can we interpret the Bible literally?  When you state that the T. rex must have used its teeth for something, the answer is in its teeth:  The T. rex used its teeth for eating meat.  This may contradict a supposed literal interpretation of Genesis.  But as the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6 shows, a literal interpretation is just not possible.  We might even ask ourselves how the ancient Hebrews themselves read the Torah.  W. Gunther Plaut, in the introduction to his Torah commentary writes:  "Even the ancient Jewish Sages, who believed that the Torah was a divinely authored book, did not take the text literally.  They took it seriously, but they always looked behind the flat literal meaning.  They realized that the Bible - in addition to everything else it was to them - abounded in subtle metaphors and allusions, that it used word plays and other literary devices, that it sometimes spoke satirically, and that its poetry could not be subject to a simple approach.  They agreed without embarrassment that one could disagree on what the Torah meant, and on this sound principle we ourselves should base our approach to the text."  An example of word play can be found in Genesis 3, where the serpent is "cunning" - the Hebrew word is arum - and then Adam and Eve found themselves ashamed because they were naked - aram in Hebrew.  It is difficult to imagine this play on words being taken in a "flat literal" sense.  Which takes us back to the expanse of verse 1:6.  Did the ancient Hebrews actually believe, then, that the sky was a solid object?  Or does this verse also have a meaning behind its "flat literal meaning"?  If they really did believe the sky was a solid object, at a time which was centuries before Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, then do Jews still believe that?  I really don't believe that they do. - Danielitld