Cereal grains in the Bible

 

                            Wheat field, North Carolina

Cereal grains include corn (maize), rice, wheat, spelt, rye, oats, barley, millet, sorghum and others. Maize was domesticated in the New World, and therefore, was not known by people in the Bible. Rice requires conditions not found by people in the Bible. 

The King James version of the Bible mentions corn several times. One such is in Genesis 27, in which Isaac is said to have blessed Jacob, but not Esau, with corn crops. In Genesis 41-47, the word "corn" is used several times, but, for reasons given above, this can't have been maize, but must have been some other grain. 

John 12:24 (KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. In this verse, "corn" has a different meaning. It refers to the grain (or fruit) as a corn. Apparently this word use was legitimate in the time of the KJV translators.

The Bible uses some of the types of grain. One verse refers to four different grains:

Ezekiel 4:9a "Take for yourself also wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel...." (World English Bible, public domain. Beans and lentils are not cereal grains.)

Consider wheat. Several related species of grasses are called wheat. These include durum, emmer, einkorn, and others. 

Spelt is mentioned three times in the Old Testament. Each time, wheat is also mentioned. 

I did not find the word, "rye", the word, "oats," or the word, "sorghum," in the Bible. Nor did I find "durum," "emmer," or "einkorn."

Barley is mentioned several times. In John 6, the boy with his food had barley loaves as part of his provisions for the day.

Cereal grains, especially wheat, are food crops that are very important to us today, and were, if anything, even more important in Bible times. These grains could be stored for a long time. They were used to make bread. Jesus said, in John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." (WEB) Adam and Eve were told, in Genesis 3:19, that they would earn their bread through hard labor. In Genesis 41-47, the famine in Egypt is described as a lack of bread. In Exodus 12-13, the Hebrews were instructed to eat unleavened bread. Exodus 25:30, and Exodus 29, and Leviticus 8, and other passages, give instructions about bread as part of Tabernacle worship. In Judges 7, a loaf of barley bread appears in a dream of a Midianite invader of Israel, a sign that God is with Gideon, and against the Midianites.

The word, bread, occurs many times in the Bible. It usually seems to refer to the ordinary events of daily life, especially eating. Sometimes it is a symbol of hospitality, or of friendship. In the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to give us our daily bread.

At the Last Supper: Matthew 26:26 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” There have been, and are, theological disputes among Christians over what that means. I won't settle that here.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Thanks for reading!

Sunspots 976

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others: 

The BBC reports on the discovery of very large squid. (or is it squids?)

A-z animals, and other sources, report on a newly discovered orangutan population.

Ken Schenck discusses the importance of context in Bible interpretation.

Ars Technica, and other outlets, report on experiments that show that bonobos can tell when a human doesn't know the location of a treat, as compared to when the human does know.

Yahoo! and other outlets report that a group of over a thousand dolphins has been seen in the Pacific.

Columbia Journalism Review reports on Elon Musk's dislike of the Wikipedia.

Salt-Bible study

There are about 40 occurrences of the word, salt, in the Bible. Here are some of them:

Salt was part of the offerings to Yahweh: Leviticus 2:13 Every offering of your meal offering you shall season with salt. You shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt.

Salt was used to poison the fields of enemy nations: Judges 9:44 Abimelech and the companies that were with him rushed forward and stood in the entrance of the gate of the city; and the two companies rushed on all who were in the field and struck them. 45 Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city and killed the people in it. He beat down the city and sowed it with salt.

Deuteronomy 29:23 that all of its land is sulfur, salt, and burning, that it is not sown, doesn’t produce, nor does any grass grow in it, like the overthrow of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which Yahweh overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath.

But salt, in at least one case, had the opposite effect, presumably because of a miracle: 2 Kings 2:19 The men of the city said to Elisha, “Behold, please, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is barren. 20 He said, “Bring me a new jar, and put salt in it.” Then they brought it to him. 21 He went out to the spring of the waters, and threw salt into it, and said, “Yahweh says, ‘I have healed these waters. There shall not be from there any more death or barren wasteland.’”

Offerings were supposed to be salted:

Leviticus 2:13 Every offering of your meal offering you shall season with salt. You shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your meal offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt.

Numbers 18:19 All the wave offerings of the holy things which the children of Israel offer to Yahweh, I have given you and your sons and your daughters with you, as a portion forever. It is a covenant of salt forever before Yahweh to you and to your offspring with you.”

Salt was used in part of the ritual of establishing a covenant:

2 Chronicles 13:5 Ought you not to know that Yahweh, the God of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt? (I'm not sure whether salt was used in covenants between people, or just in covenants between God and people.)

Babies were salted at birth: Ezekiel 16:4 As for your birth, in the day you were born your navel was not cut. You weren’t washed in water to cleanse you. You weren’t salted at all, nor wrapped in blankets at all. (It may be that some of the significance of salt, as in putting it on babies, were prevalent just at the time related to that scripture. Or these practices may be widespread.

Here are some references from the New Testament: Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavor, with what will it be salted? It is then good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.

Luke 14:34 “Salt is good, but if the salt becomes flat and tasteless, with what do you season it?

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.

For the Christian, salt is related to keeping our flavor. Does that mean that we should remain distinct from the general population? Christians are to impart God's grace, perhaps somewhat like babies were salted in Ezekiel's time.

Salt preserves and flavors. These uses were well known in Bible times. A use that they probably didin't think about was that salt retards freezing. As I write, there is lots of crystallized salt on roads and sidewalks nearby.  Christians, too, should be warm-hearted.

There are several Biblical references to the Salt Sea, which we now call the Dead Sea. (It has a high salt content.)

For a lot more about salt, see the Wikipedia article.

Immigration: What the Bible says about it

 See this post for a discussion of what the Bible says about immigration. (It says quite a bit!)

Uzza, or Uzzah

2 Samuel 6:1 David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. 2 David arose, and went with all the people who were with him, from Baale Judah, to bring up from there God’s ark, which is called by the Name, even the name of Yahweh of Armies who sits above the cherubim. 3 They set God’s ark on a new cart, and brought it out of Abinadab’s house that was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart. 4 They brought it out of Abinadab’s house, which was in the hill, with God’s ark; and Ahio went before the ark. 5 David and all the house of Israel played before Yahweh with all kinds of instruments made of cypress wood, with harps, with stringed instruments, with tambourines, with castanets, and with cymbals. 6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached for God’s ark, and took hold of it; for the cattle stumbled. 7 Yahweh’s anger burned against Uzzah; and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by God’s ark. 8 David was displeased, because Yahweh had broken out against Uzzah; and he called that place Perez Uzzah, to this day. 9 David was afraid of Yahweh that day; and he said, “How could Yahweh’s ark come to me?” 10 So David would not move Yahweh’s ark to be with him in David’s city; but David carried it aside into Obed-Edom the Gittite’s house. 11 Yahweh’s ark remained in Obed-Edom the Gittite’s house three months; and Yahweh blessed Obed-Edom and all his house. 12 King David was told, “Yahweh has blessed the house of Obed-Edom, and all that belongs to him, because of God’s ark.” (World English Bible, public domain. This story is also told in 1 Chronicles 13.)

I confess that this story has always bothered me. It bothered David, too. Uzzah seems to have been  just trying to protect the Ark, and God seems to have killed him for it.

Before I go further, a side note. There are two versions of Uzzah's name -- Uzza and Uzzah. It is possible that these names tell us about two different people. It is also possible that there was more than one Uzza, or more than one Uzzah, in the Old Testament. I am assuming that there was only one Uzzah, and that, for reasons I don't know, his name is spelled in two different ways in the World English Bible, and, most likely, in other versions of the Bible. See here for more examination of the question of how many Uzzahs, or Uzzas, that there were.

1 Chronicles 8:1-7 tells us about the ancestry of Uzza, probably the same man as in the story above.

2 Kings 21:22-26 indicates that Uzzah may have been known about much later, as King Amon was buried in a tomb in "The garden of Uzza."

Ezra 2:49 lists offspring of Uzzah as some of the Temple servants, returning from captivity, and this is also true of Nehemiah 7:51.

I believe that God is just. I also believe that God directs, or allows, things that I don't understand. Perhaps God's justice was illustrated in the life of Uzzah, when it suddenly ended, but, even in death, his family was honored by being among those returning from captivity, and among those tending to the care of the holy places and ceremonies of Israel. Perhaps Uzzah is resting until the Final Kingdom, or perhaps he is even now worshipping God as we speak!

Thanks for reading.

rivers in the Bible

Rivers are mentioned often in the Bible. The Bible search tool I use says that there are 188 uses of the word, "river" in the Bible. Many of them seem trivial, landmarks. Here are some of the scriptural occurrences, some not so trivial:

Genesis 2 speaks of one river coming out of Eden, and splitting into four rivers.

Genesis 15:18 prophecies that Abraham's offspring will control the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. There are similar statements in Deuteronomy 11:4 and Joshua 1:4.

In Genesis 41, Pharaoh described his dream of the future famine, in which dream cows by the river are symbolic.

In Exodus 1 and 2, baby Moses is set afloat on the river (apparently the Nile)

In Exodus 4-8, some of the plagues sent on the Egyptians involved a river, most likely the Nile.

The crossing of the Jordan river, arguably one of the highlights of the Old Testament, is described in Joshua 2-4.

Joshua 24 has three warnings about serving gods from beyond the river.

There are several instances where a river (sometimes not name, hence understood by the audience) is used as a border. For example, see 1 Kings 4:21-24.

In 1 Kings 5, Naaman of Syria complains when Elisha tells him to wash seven times in the Jordan, rather than washing in the rivers of Syria.

In 2 Kings 18:11 and 1 Chronicles 5:26, the captured Israelites are placed next to the Gozan river.

There are several references to "beyond the river" in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Psalm 46:4 "There is a river, the streams of which make the city of God glad, the holy place of the tents of the Most High."

There are several references to restoring the land, and its rivers, in Isaiah. Here's one such: Isaiah 43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and flame will not scorch you. This chapter also says that God can create rivers in the desert.

Ezekiel 47 tells about a river that will flow out of the temple, and will have abundant trees along it, and abundant fish in it.

Amos 5:24 was used in Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech: "But let justice roll on like rivers, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Mark 2 tells of the ministry of John the Baptist, who baptized Christ in the Jordan river.

Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit in John 7:38 “... He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.”

In Acts 16, the first converts in Europe joined with Paul and his fellows at a place of prayer on a river.

The final chapter of the Bible refers to a river: Revelation 22:1 He showed me a[a] river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On this side of the river and on that was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (See reference to Ezekiel, above)

Crossing the Jordan, Christ being baptized in that same river, the Holy Spirit being promised, the conversion of Lydia, and the abundant riverside in the Final Kingdom are not so trivial. May you and I experience that last instance! Thanks for reading.

Immigration and migration, what the Bible says (repost)

This was a fairly long post on what the Bible says about how to treat immigrants.

Thanks for reading, or re-reading.

No Abraham, no Moses: Major events in history, according to Answers in Genesis

Answers in Genesis (AiG) tells us that the Bible is "a history book that reveals the major events of history that are foundational to the Bible’s important messages."

In the web page referenced in the previous paragraph, which is credited to Ken Ham and Stacia McKeever, AiG sets forth seven major events in the history of the world, each one beginning with a C. These are Creation, Corruption (the Fall), Catastrophe (the Flood), Confusion (The Tower of Babel), all of which are in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and Christ, the Cross, and Consummation, from the remainder of the Bible.

Condensing the Bible into seven, or even more, events is a challenge, and it's not surprising that AiG has left out some major events and individuals. But what have they left out?

Abraham is left out. Abraham is mentioned about 230 times in the Bible, with about 70 of these in the New Testament. These include Galatians 3:6-8, and other important references to Abraham's faith. 

Moses is another omission. Moses is mentioned about 780 times in the Bible, of which about 70 are in the New Testament. These include leading the Israelites through the Red Sea and the Jordan River, governing them for decades, receiving the Ten Commandments and other laws, and speaking to God face to face.

There are other events and people left out of the "important messages," such as Job, David, Ruth, Esther, Isaiah and all of the other prophets. The Psalms are not exactly an event, but they are important even today, often used, and quoted often in the New Testament. There is additional wisdom literature in the Bible. Psalms, Jeremiah and Ezekiel make up about 15% of the Bible.

Acts and the Epistles, which make up much of the New Testament, describe the formation and beliefs of the early church, and are foundational for most of the beliefs of the church of today. They are left out of AiG's list.

On the other hand, the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) is included in the 7 C's list, in spite of the fact that it isn't referred to anywhere else in the Bible. There are important Bible scholars who do not believe that there actually was such a tower. Bible scholars also question other statements on the 7 C's page, such as that there was a world-wide flood, or that dinosaurs were rescued on the Ark.

AiG is to be commended for pointing us to the importance of the Bible, but emphasizes their interpretation of one book of the Bible,  Genesis, too much. (Genesis is less than 6% of the Bible.)

Thanks for reading.

"An Open Letter to Ken Ham"

The Sparks blog has posted an open letter to Ken Ham, which is well worth reading.

Dinosaurs: (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope

I have recently read the book that has the same title as this post. (I'll call it Stanhope throughout the rest of this post. I'll also call the author Stanhope. I think you can figure out which is meant, if both aren't.)

Amazon allows for reviews. There are many, mostly five stars (out of five), and an occasional four stars of Stanhope. There is one one-star review. The author of that review complains that Stanhope doesn't have a doctorate, whereas Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis (AiG) has a doctorate. I looked up Lisle, and, sure enough, he has a doctorate in astronomy. Stanhope does refer to Lisle, a little, but argues strongly against the positions Lisle takes. Lisle has little or no expertise in the subject matter of Stanhope. Stanhope, doctorate or not, seems to have a firm grasp of his subject  matter.

Here's a review by a person with expertise in ancient near eastern languages. It is highly complimentary. 

Stanhope criticizes AiG publications and positions. And his criticism is based on analysis of the manuscripts used to construct the Bible. (As he says, most of these  manuscripts, and other original source materials, have not been available until the last 150 years or so.)

What does Stanhope criticize?

Dinosaurs

First, he demolishes claims, by AiG, that there were dinosaurs alive in Bible times. He does so by examining the texts carefully. Ken Ham, of AiG, claims that Job 41 mentions Leviathan, and that Leviathan was a dinosaur. (See also Job 3, Psalm 74, 104, and Isaiah 27. A similar claim is made for Behemoth, mentioned in Job 40.) Stanhope finds other, better ways to interpret these passages.

Why does AiG insist upon dinosaurs in historical times? Well, I guess they believe they existed. But there is another reason. If, as they claim, the earth is only about 6000 years old, the plausibility of dinosaurs in historical time is much higher than it would be if the earth were very old. Conversely, if dinosaurs were around in historical times, that's evidence for a young earth. And there's another reason. Dinosaurs attract people to the Creation Museum, to AiG literature, and to AiG presentations in churches.

Stanhope analyzes AiG claims that there were unicorns mentioned in the Bible (They are, if you are using the King James version -- Deuteronomy33:17, Job 30:10, Psalm 29:6 and Psalm 92:10.) Stanhope demolishes these claims. He does the same for AiG claims that there are flying reptiles mentioned in the Bible. (Isaiah 30:6, and possibly other places.)

Genesis 1:1 

Stanhope spends several chapters to argue that Genesis 1:1 is usually mistranslated, and should say something like "in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth," with more thoughts to follow, in the same sentence. Stanhope may be right, but I only found one English translation of the Bible that translates Genesis 1:1 like this, and I'd never heard of this translation before.

I found Stanhope to be helpful, perhaps because he supports my view of dinosaurs in the Old Testament, but mostly because he seems to have solid knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.

Thanks for reading. (Edited for clarity on October 4, 2023)

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative, part 2

In recent post on this blog, I argued that Genesis is not straightforward historical narrative. Many Christ-loving Bible scholars had already said this, for many reasons. My principal reason was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot be straightforward historical narrative, because there are discrepancies between these two chapters. See graphic:

There is another important reason for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 are straightforward historical narrative. That reason is that the firmament, or expanse, mentioned in Genesis 1, does not exist. The Hebrews of Bible times believed that there was a solid, transparent dome above the earth, which held up the heavenly bodies, as well as water, in its various forms. They thought wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the beliefs of the writers/readers/listeners. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. Genesis does not say that you have to believe in a firmament to please God. There is no reference to an expanse or firmament in the commonly  used creeds of the church. The churches of today do not expect belief in a firmament/expanse as a requirement of members.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written, not to teach astronomy, but to emphasize the existence of an all-powerful Creator, who is deeply concerned about the fate of humans.

Thanks for reading.

Is the science of the Bible always correct? The role of the kidneys

(Image from Wikimedia Commons)

The Blueletter Bible has this entry for the Hebrew word kilyâ. It translates that word as the kidneys, or the reins. "Reins" is not a word much in use in our day -- the Blueletter Bible uses the King James as its default version. However, its use in the Bible seems to refer to a function analogous to the reins used in guiding a horse. The reins control what we are thinking of, do, and say. 

Referring to Strong's concordance, the Blueletter Bible says "kidney (as an essential organ); figuratively, the mind (as the interior self):—kidneys, reins." Looking further in the Blueletter Bible's entry for kilyâ, there are 31 instances of that word in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these are in relation to the body parts of a sacrificial animal, and seem, therefore, to use the word for kidney as we would do so today. But there are other uses. Here are some: (Scripture is from the World English Bible, with the translation results from kilyâ given in bold:)

Psalm 7:9 Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end,
    but establish the righteous;
    their minds and hearts are searched by the righteous God.

Psalm 26:2 Examine me, Yahweh, and prove me.
    Try my heart and my mind.

Proverbs 23:16 Yes, my heart will rejoice
    when your lips speak what is right. 

Jeremiah 11:20a But, Yahweh of Armies, who judges righteously,
    who tests the heart and the mind

The people of Bible times thought that the kidneys were the seat of the consciousness, the engineer, as it were, of the personal locomotive. And, as we often still do, they thought of the physical heart in the same way.

There is, and was, nothing seriously wrong with believing that the kidneys, or the heart, are the engineer of our consciousness, as in, for example: "I asked Jesus into my heart." But, if you think that the science of Bible times must agree with current scientific thought, there is something wrong. The Bible was written, at least partly, for a current audience, using the science of the day. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. It just means that the Bible conforms to the culture of ancient times. It doesn't expect or demand that we have to think of the brain as the seat of consciousness.

There are previous posts, making the same argument for ancient science, on the firmament, or expanse, on the liver, and on the size of mustard seeds. 

Thanks for reading!

*The graphic was added on October 30, 2023.

The Firmament (or Expanse)

This post is one in a series on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. 

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above. 1:23 Under the expanse were their wings straight, the one toward the other: each one had two which covered on this side, and every one had two which covered on that side, their bodies. (All scripture from World English Bible, public domain, unless noted otherwise. Long quotes are in this color.)

The word translated as "expanse" is as follows, according to Strong's Concordance (See Wikipedia article on that resource) as shown in the Blueletter Bible:

Note that Strong gives two meanings for the Hebrew word rāqîa. The first is a "base, support," and the second is "regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it."

rāqîa is found in a number of passages in the Old Testament. It is translated as "firmament," "expanse," "surface," "platform" or "vault" in various translations, in Genesis 1:6; 1:6; 1:7; 1:8; 1:14; 1:14; 1:15; 1:17; 1:20, Job 37:18, Psalms 19:2; 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22; (3 times) 1:23; 1:25; 1:26 Daniel 12:3. "Expanse" is the most common, and it is often rendered "likeness of an expanse."

The graphic below is from the same source as the first one, and shows the concordance of Gesenius.

These two old authorities (Strong and Gesenius) believed that the firmament, or expanse, was a physical structure, over the earth, and that the stars were fixed in that expanse, and that that expanse supported reservoirs of water, just as the ancient Jews believed.

Here are some more Biblical uses of the word, rāqîa:

Genesis 1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.” The King James Version, and some others, use "firmament," rather than "expanse." "Expanse" is used more often than "firmament." One version uses "arch." The NIV uses "vault." (See here for over a dozen translations of Genesis 1:6.)

Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror? [This verse supports the idea of a solid dome.]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.

Psalm 150:1 Praise Yah! Praise God in his sanctuary! Praise him in his heavens for his acts of power!

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like an awesome crystal to look at, stretched out over their heads above. 23 Under the expanse, their wings were straight, one toward the other. Each one had two which covered on this side, and each one had two which covered their bodies on that side. 24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of an army. When they stood, they let down their wings.25 There was a voice above the expanse that was over their heads. When they stood, they let down their wings. 26 Above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone. On the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man on it above.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise will shine as the brightness of the expanse. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine as the stars forever and ever.

There are also Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. ["windows opened" suggests a belief in a solid dome.]

and Job 22:12 “Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are! 13 You say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, so that he doesn’t see. He walks on the vault of the sky.’ [Walking on a vault suggests that the vault is solid.]

Since I was going to write on the firmament/expanse/vault/arch, I thought I should see what AiG, the most important young-earth creationism organization, had to say about it. Here's part of that:

Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. (Guy Vaterlaus, "Underneath a Solid Sky," Answers in Genesis, August 8, 2023. Also published earlier on March 9, 2009.)

And, from the same post: "The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome." Vaterlaus strongly implies that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a solid dome, holding up the heavenly bodies.

"Critics of the Bible" sounds like an important idea. But, what it really means, to Answers in Genesis, is "critics of the Answers in Genesis interpretation of the Bible." See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, which includes the following:

• The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. ...
• The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and catastrophic in its effects. ...
• Scripture teaches a recent origin of man and the whole creation, with history spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

In spite of the scriptural and historical evidence, AiG maintains that people of Bible times didn't believe in some sort of dome over the earth, holding up the clouds and heavenly bodies. Here's an article on the subject, from AiG. The title says it: ""Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?" The answer, is "no."

Another article on the subject, from AiG, says The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.

AiG may be correct about some Bible critics and what they say about the Bible. But I doubt that many such base their criticism primarily on the idea of a solid dome above the earth. AiG is not correct in saying that statements in the Bible about scientific subjects, like cosmology, have to match our current knowledge, or, if they don't, the Bible is deeply discredited. I have posted here about ancient understanding of the function of the liver, and here, about the size of mustard seeds, and about how the sun's position relative to the earth is described. In these cases, the Bible reports something that was said, or believed, and was wrong scientifically. But that doesn't make the Bible wrong, anymore than reporting on some wacky idea, without arguing for its truth, would discredit CNN's reporting.

The Bible does not teach, as a doctrine to be defended, that there was a solid dome above the earth. But it does describe the situation as the ancient Jews believed it -- they thought there was such a firmament. If anything, that makes the Bible more believable.

Thank you for reading.

 

The Bible and culture, and so-called errors in the Bible

Literal or not?

In a previous post, I considered genres in the Bible. The Bible is God's Word, and living by it should be very important. But the Bible is not a historical narrative, although there are parts of it that seem to have been meant as such, like Judges, Ruth, Esther, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. But the Bible is more than a historical setting forth of what happened when, where, and with whom. Some parts of the Bible, like the Psalms, are poetic, setting forth the truth in figurative language. Example: 

Psalm 1:3 He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water,
    that produces its fruit in its season,
    whose leaf also does not wither.
    Whatever he does shall prosper. 

4 The wicked are not so,
    but are like the chaff which the wind drives away. (Long quotations are set in this color. Quoted scripture is from the World English Bible, public domain.)

The wicked are not really blown away, and the good man (or woman) isn't really rooted next to a water source. That doesn't take away from the significance of the passage, which is about God sustaining people who follow him, and punishment for those who don't.

Another example of poetic, non-literal language: Psalm 98:7 Let the sea roar with its fullness; the world, and those who dwell therein. 8 Let the rivers clap their hands. Let the mountains sing for joy together. 9 Let them sing before Yahweh, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.

Some parts of the Bible are apocalyptic. Some, probably including most or all of the parables in the gospels, are stories to make an important point. Some parts, like much of the epistles, were to set forth the theology of the Kingdom.

The influence of culture.

How long was Christ in the tomb? Most Christians would answer "three days." After all, the Bible says, in Matthew 16:21 and other places, "From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up," or similar language. The culture of the people of Israel, in the time of Christ, would influence how the time in the tomb was described. Christ died toward sundown on Good Friday, and had risen by morning on Easter Sunday. That means that he really was in the tomb for less than 48 hours. In my culture, this probably wouldn't be described as "three days." Apparently it would be appropriate, in the culture of the Bible, to describe this time as "three days." This example shows that the culture of the writer and the reader influences how scripture is interpreted.

We say that the sun (and moon) rise and set. They don’t, really. The earth rotates so that they are visible in regular patterns. The rising and setting description is part of our culture. It’s not wrong, in the sense that other people are harmed or deceived when I talk about the sunrise, but it’s not strictly correct to say that it rises and sets. Luke 4:40 ("When the sun was setting, all those who had any sick with various diseases brought them to him") is not teaching astronomy, and it uses, as we also do, a modified description of the actual happening, accepted in the culture of Bible times. Readers would have been mystified, if Luke had written "when the earth rotated so that the sun was gradually obscured by the earth." So would Luke.

Mark 4:30 He said, “How will we liken God’s Kingdom? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? 31 It’s like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, 32 yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow.”

Actually, a mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Answers in Genesis has posted an article about this situation. There are some interesting speculations in the article, and some that I have trouble with, but I agree with this statement: "The parable was never meant to be an exposition on botanical size ..." No, it wasn't. And the Bible, nor Jesus, is in error here, any more than Luke 4:40 is. Jesus was communicating about the Kingdom of God. Presumably, in that culture, mustard seeds were described as the smallest seeds, and the people of Jesus's time and place didn't know that they weren't. It would have been unnecessarily confusing for Jesus to have described unfamiliar tiny seeds.

So, Biblical examples, such as the ones given above, indicate that the culture of the audience may mean that parts of the Bible are best not to be taken as literal, historical fact. There are plenty of arguments about which parts these are, and how they should be taken.

Thanks for reading!

Bible -- historical or not? Genres in Bible literature

Genres of scripture

Christians often think that the Bible is a lot like a history book -- it tells things as they happened, in order, giving just the facts. Some parts of the Bible are like that, but some aren't. They are still part of God's communication with us.

Genre: "A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content" - The Free Dictionary. (Pronunciation -- John-er).

The Wikipedia has an extensive list of genres found in the Bible. They include:

historical narrative

law

wisdom literature

psalms Many parts of the Psalms don't seem to be meant to be taken literally. 

From Psalm 23: are we really going to enter green pastures, and walk by still waters? Will we really sit at a table in the presence of our enemies? What is the valley of the shadow of death?

From Psalm 114: When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of foreign language, 2 Judah became his sanctuary Israel his dominion. 3 The sea saw it, and fled. The Jordan as driven back. 4 The mountains skipped like rams, the little hills like lambs. 5 What was it, you sea, that you fled? You Jordan, that you turned back? 6 You mountains, that you skipped like rams; you little hills, like lambs? (All scripture from the World English Bible, public domain, unless specified otherwise. Long quotations are in this color.)

apocalyptic literature (Revelation, much of Daniel)

the gospels: The Wikipedia list does not classify these as historical narrative. Other Bible scholars treat the gospels as mostly or entirely historical, although some parts of the gospels are prophecy, and some (Such as Mary's song in Luke 1:46-55) are poetry, or psalm-like. There is quite a bit of  non-historical material in the gospels. For instance, Nicodemus didn't understand the concept of new birth. Jesus, according to John's gospel, was (spiritually, not literally) the Bread of Life, the Light of the world, the Door, the Good Shepherd, and the Way.

Some parts of the Bible are clearly some sort of fiction. See verses 8-15 in the story below (Jerubbaal is another name for Gideon):

Judges 9:1 Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother’s brothers, and spoke with them and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father, saying, 2 “Please speak in the ears of all the men of Shechem, ‘Is it better for you that all the sons of Jerubbaal, who are seventy persons, rule over you, or that one rule over you?’ Remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.”

3 His mother’s brothers spoke of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words. Their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, “He is our brother.” 4 They gave him seventy pieces of silver out of the house of Baal Berith, with which Abimelech hired vain and reckless fellows who followed him. 5 He went to his father’s house at Ophrah, and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, being seventy persons, on one stone; but Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left, for he hid himself. 6 All the men of Shechem assembled themselves together with all the house of Millo, and went and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar that was in Shechem. 7 When they told it to Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim and lifted up his voice, cried out, and said to them, “Listen to me, you men of Shechem, that God may listen to you. 8 The trees set out to anoint a king over themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’

9 “But the olive tree said to them, ‘Should I stop producing my oil, with which they honor God and man by me, and go to wave back and forth over the trees?’

10 “The trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and reign over us.’

11 “But the fig tree said to them, ‘Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave back and forth over the trees?’

12 “The trees said to the vine, ‘Come and reign over us.’

13 “The vine said to them, ‘Should I leave my new wine, which cheers God and man, and go to wave back and forth over the trees?’

14 “Then all the trees said to the bramble, ‘Come and reign over us.’

15 “The bramble said to the trees, ‘If in truth you anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.’

16 “Now therefore, if you have dealt truly and righteously, in that you have made Abimelech king, and if you have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done to him according to the deserving of his hands 17 (for my father fought for you, risked his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian; 18 and you have risen up against my father’s house today and have slain his sons, seventy persons, on one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his female servant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother); 19 if you then have dealt truly and righteously with Jerubbaal and with his house today, then rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you; 20 but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech and devour the men of Shechem and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem and from the house of Millo and devour Abimelech.”

21 Jotham ran away and fled, and went to Beer and lived there, for fear of Abimelech his brother.

Other parts of the Bible, including parts of the gospels, may have been either historical, or fictional. Was there a real prodigal son, or did Jesus just tell this story to show God's love? Was there a real Good Samaritan, or did Jesus just tell a story to point out that giving help to those who need, even if not from our ethnic group, is important? The parables make their point as well if they are narratives of something that really happened, or were told as fictional stories with an important meaning. Some parts of the gospels are clearly meant as non-historical. Nicodemus asked if a person could be physically born again. He missed the point. Jesus said that He was the Light of the World, the Good Shepherd, and the Bread of Life, in John's gospel. He said that the Holy Spirit was living water. These descriptions were not meant to be taken as history.

Not all Bible scholars would agree with the Wikipedia's list of genres, or would agree with which Bible parts are of which genre.

In a later post, I hope to discuss the interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

Thanks for reading! Please comment, if you can figure out how to do so.