Wise. It’s not even clear that Abraham existed, and it certainly isn’t clear when or where classical Hebrew was first spoken. Wikipedia tells me that the first inscriptions in proto-Hebrew are from the 10th Century BC, that it’s a Canaanite language most closely related to Phoenician. Abraham, on the other hand, came from “Ur of the Chaldees”, which suggests that his first language would have been Sumerian, if that’s who the Chaldees are. Not sure exactly when Sumerian ceased being a spoken language. And I’m not sure when Abraham is supposed to have lived.
1 Like
And just as its hard to pin down when late Latin morphed into Old French in some region, it is all the more difficult to define when various proto-languages branched into very ancient languages when the “documentation” (as in crumbly cuneiform, for example) is not as generous as we would wish.
I was missing words in that post, and I couldn’t edit it before it was approved. He conquered his father and brother’s households first (Agade and Uruk), and then others tried to fight him, including Semites, but he was victorious over them as well.
Akkadian, as I have pointed out, is a Semitic language, and yet Nimrod was a descendant of Ham, not Shem. Either the term “Semitic” has been incorrectly applied to these languages, or the claims about which ethnicities descend from the three sons of Noah is wrong, or both. At any rate there’s no support here for identifying Nimrod with Sargon. This might be a good time to point out that the dates of Sargon’s reign are approximately the same as the dates traditionally given for the Flood.
Langue d’oc et langue d’oïl too.
1 Like
I thought this text would interest you; it was shown to me by a BioLogos participant (Reggie O’Donoghue) a few years back:
Psams 19:1,4 [Revised Standard Version]
… The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
… Yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun, << A tabernacle where the sun dwells at rest.
The fact they imagine a structure bigger than the sun, that provides rest to the Sun out of view … is consistent with the idea that the Earth is NOT a sphere where the Sun is ALWAYS visible from some portion of the globe. But with a flat dish-like Earth … the scribes can easily imagine all sorts of places and things in the sky … but not visible from the inhabited portion of Earth.
This is supported by what we find in Job 38:22-23
Hast thou entered into the treasures [i.e., "warehouses’] of the snow?
Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail?
[These] I [Yahweh] have reserved against [for a] time of trouble,
against the day of battle and war?
Warehouses full of snow and hail can really only be entertained if there is a portion of the sky where no human can ever see for themselves… and this is really only workable if the Earth is a disk, not a globe.
Read the whole psalm. It’s an extended metaphor.
This whole chapter is saying we don’t have the perspective of God. Have you been in a cloud? no.
If you look at those sections in context, they don’t rule out knowing the shape of the earth at all.
The bible is full of metaphor … but it’s funny how there isn’t ANY metaphors that reflect correct cosmology.
It would be pretty easy to adjust these references in Psalms and Job that would reveal an inner awareness of the Earth being a globe.
You asked the question: “Were the ancients aware of a globe?” The answer appears to be no… just like they had no concept of what kept the waters of heaven UP IN THE AIR.
CAVEAT: At some point, the Greeks had a reasonably strong conviction that the Earth was a sphere. But I have not made a study of when that turning point in the Hellenistic mind was achieved.
But I am reasonably confident that there isn’t any part of the Old Testament that reflects this turning point.
1 Like
Have you been reading any of the posts I’ve started regarding investigating cosmology and comparing with the Bible?
Someone posted this in another thread, @thoughtful. The slide show addresses some of your questions above, its an easy to follow presentation for us non-scientists.
My point was he’s insulting God by acting as if God would inspire writers to write stupid things. He may not have been insulting me but I’ve been spending months studying physics and all kinds of passages on creation related to Genesis 1 over and over and I’ve posted about all of that a lot. For him to say God’s inspired Word doesn’t know how waters are held up in the air made me angry. Plus I’ve been posting about just that very thing for weeks. He may or may not have read my threads and realized that. So I can let that one go. I was asking if he had read them.
Just to clarify matters… I’m a Unitarian Universalist. We don’t worry too much about God “feeling insulted”. Otherwise, what would we make of this lesson Jesus taught his followers in Mark 8:23
"And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town;
and when he had spit on his eyes,
and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
Did Jesus know germ theory? Almost certainly not. And my denomination wouldn’t expect Jesus to know such things.
This statement:
Proves that @thoughtful is correct when she says:
@gbrooks9, Jesus knew/knows everything, so does God…humans don’t. Of course Jesus knows germ theory, better than any human, he created it. The representation that Jesus was limited in His understanding of the universe (in total) is a very limited understanding of Jesus and of God. Miracles to men are common (natural) actions for God.
Interesting, I know from bible study, pretty basic stuff. Jesus knows everything because He was there at the beginning and was/is/is to come God.
That said, believe what you wish, follow who you want.
1 Like
That is a metaphysical idea. And I don’t think the facts support it. Jesus puts mud into peoples eyes… (which was a known piece of pagan-based magic).
Imagine the good that Jesus could have single-handedly accomplished if he had described “evil spirits” as microscopic, and something that could be washed off the hands?
If Jesus is God AND ALL HUMAN … I think that’s where the human issue comes to play - - Jesus doesn’t seem to know anything modern at all… but he does a good job with re-packaging ethics!
No, this is a theological idea that has lots of scriptural support.
This is pretty much the whole point to the New Testament. Read John, Hebrews, Revelation again. Jesus says quite plainly in John 10:30 - “I and my Father are One”. If you believe in Jesus but don’t understand the importance behind Him being both man and God, then it is time to study the bible. Jesus could have ended humanity with a thought, or a snap of His fingers, but He didn’t, and it’s important to understand why.
Whew, sister! Ditto to that!
I was just going to ask you regarding your thoughts here, not to make an attempt at rewriting, that would be a big job. Could you possibly just bullet-point your ideas for those of us who believe there is substance here? It would really help to copy and make notes.
Thanks so much for this thread!
1 Like
Oh, for goodness sake. The Church Fathers cut this chestnut a million different ways. And apparently YOUR favorite version is the one that makes the least in the modern world. This is why I am a Unitarian.
As for “metaphysical” vs. “theological” - - I think you will find that they are generally used synonymously. Something “metaphysical” can’t be proved or disproved… and the same can be said for things “theological”.
The Pharisees said we “slept” when we die - - awaiting a physical resurrection.
The Sicarii said our consciousness (of the Righteous ones) went to the Isle of the Blessed until God sent the angels to retrieve you for a particular purpose… also with a General Resurrection coming later.
The difference in views on the afterlife are both metaphysical differences and theological differences. Only death will allow you to report the facts … if you remember to bring your smart phone!
Honest question…who are the “Church Fathers”…I keep seeing it thrown around like it is a known fact. Do you mean apostles?
@jongarvey and @deuteroKJ might clarify, but I think the church fathers are key leaders in the early centuries of the church, not apostles.
2 Likes
I understand it to be the next generation of church leaders after the apostles. But it’s a good question. I’d be interested to know if someone else has a different of distinct definition. Here’s what Wikipedia says. Church Fathers - Wikipedia
1 Like