Jun 29, 2012 -- 1:44PM, AnnOMaly wrote:

Do you wish me to research further how the skies were beaten so as to reflect light like a mirror?

Don't trouble yourself. 

Seeing as Barnes's (frequently sound) insights have been quoted already, let's refer to him again.

Hast thou with him spread out the sky? - That is, wert thou employed with God in performing that vast work, that thou canst explain how it was done? Elihu here speaks of the sky as it appears, and as it is often spoken of, as an expanse or solid body spread out over our heads, and as sustained by some cause which is unknown. Sometimes in the Scriptures it is spoken of as a curtain (Notes, Isaiah 40:22); sometimes as a "firmament," or a solid body spread out (Septuagint, Genesis 1:6-7); sometimes as a fixture in which the stars are placed (Notes, Isaiah 34:4), and sometimes as a scroll that may be rolled up, or as a garment, Psalm 102:26. There is no reason to suppose that the true cause of the appearance of an expanse was understood at that time, but probably the prevailing impression was that the sky was solid and was a fixture in which the stars were held. Many of the ancients supposed that there were concentric spheres, which were transparent but solid, and that these spheres revolved around the earth carrying the heavenly bodies with them. In one of these spheres, they supposed, was the sun; in another the moon; in another the fixed stars; in another the planets; and it was the harmonious movement of these concentric and transparent orbs which it was supposed produced the "music of the spheres."

Which is strong - Firm, compact. Elihu evidently supposed that it was solid. It was so firm that it was self-sustained.

And as a molten looking-glass - As a mirror that is made by being fused or cast. The word "glass" is not in the original, the Hebrew denoting simply "seeing," or a "mirror" (ראי re'ı̂y). Mirrors were commonly made of plates of metal highly polished; see the notes at Isaiah 3:23; compare Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii. p. 365. Ancient mirrors were so highly polished that in some which have been discovered at Thebes the luster has been partially restored, though they have been buried for many centuries. There can be no doubt that the early apprehension in regard to the sky was, that it was a solid expanse, and that it is often so spoken of in the Bible. There is, however, no direct declaration that it is so, and whenever it is so spoken of, it is to be understood as popular language, as we speak still of the rising or setting of the sun, though we know that the language is not philosophically correct. The design of the Bible is not to teach science, but religion, and the speakers in the Bible were allowed to use the language of common life - just as scientific men in fact do now.

Barnes is wrong here - yes, frequently sound - sometimes not - typical of Biblical scholars, btw.

Barnes makes a number of errors above - e.g.:

1. Referring to skies as an expanse or solid body - expanse is correct, solid body is wrong as our Bible dictionary correctly noted.

(KJV+)  Hast thou withH5973 him spread outH7554 the sky,H7834 which is strong,H2389 and as a moltenH3332 looking glass?H7209  - Job 37:18 - KJV with Strong's #'s via E-sword.

From Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon via e-sword:

H7834 שׁחק shachaq BDB Definition: 1) dust, cloud 1a) fine dust 1b) (thin) cloud

From Strong's Hebrew dictionary:

H7834 שׁחק shachaq shakh'-ak From H7833; a powder (as beaten small); by analogy a thin vapor; by extension the firmament: - cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.

So Barnes has ignored the Hebrew definition of the word translated "sky/skies" in Job 37:18.

2.   Barnes is focussing on the Greek Septuagint instead of the actual original Hebrew text in Genesis 1:6

Other scholars note this - I do not know why Barnes thinks Elihu espoused such an unscientific viewpoint of a solid shakhak or rakia - but note Clarke's commentary:

Gen 1:6  And God said, Let there be a firmament - Our translators, by following the firmamentum of the Vulgate, which is a translation of the στερεωμα of the Septuagint, have deprived this passage of all sense and meaning. The Hebrew word רקיע  rakia, from רקע  raka, to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavilion, simply signifies an expanse or space, and consequently that circumambient space or expansion separating the clouds, which are in the higher regions of it, from the seas, etc., which are below it. This we call the atmosphere, the orb of atoms or inconceivably small particles; but the word appears to have been used by Moses in a more extensive sense, and to include the whole of the planetary vortex, or the space which is occupied by the whole solar system.

Thus the Bible's original Hebrew words shakhak and rakia are scientifically accurate.

For example, not only is the atmosphere thin (cp. Venus) but also has dust. Likely even more dust during earth's early accretion of its present crustal composition, hence dark as noted in Genesis 1:2 (cp. Venus).

Also, one must look up all the Scriptures on this or any subject to arrive at what the Bible really teaches.

Thus early earth had dark swaddling bands (cp annular theory) and was standing compactly out of and in the midst of water:

(Job 38:9) . . .When I put the cloud as its garment And thick gloom as its swaddling band,

(2 Peter 3:5, 6) . . .For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.

Care to join me in Biblical research on this?

Why is the sky blue?

...See the article for details - the whole issue - also concerning various doomsday predictions we do not believe...

Anymore.  Which is kinda sad because the whole JW shtick is centered on immanent doomsday when God kills everyone but the JWs, who get their very own eternal, self contained prison farm where they can joyously hoe tomatoes and pick apples for all eternity.  Probably even without any internet service.

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Kemmer wrote:

...See the article for details - the whole issue - also concerning various doomsday predictions we do not believe...

Anymore.  Which is kinda sad because the whole JW shtick is centered on immanent doomsday when God kills everyone but the JWs, who get their very own eternal, self contained prison farm where they can joyously hoe tomatoes and pick apples for all eternity.  Probably even without any internet service.

In 1874 Russell said Christ would return in 1914, but He didn't.  That was changed to 1915.  In 1918 Judge Rutherford said David and the other Old Testament worthies would be resurrected in 1925, and that didn't happen.  In 1938 at the annual Convention of JW in Cincinnati, Rutherford said that no one should marry, pursue a career, or seek higher education because the end of so near.  He repeated that in the 1941 book "Children," and that wasn't so.  In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1875 and that wasn't so.  In 1989 they predicted the end of the world before the end of the 20th century and that wasn't so. 

So, this begs the question, if they have never successfully predicted a cataclysmic prophetic event, how can anyone be sure that anything the Governing Body teaches is right about anything?

Jul 2, 2012 -- 3:05PM, woodzz wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:23PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Kemmer wrote:

...See the article for details - the whole issue - also concerning various doomsday predictions we do not believe...

Anymore.  Which is kinda sad because the whole JW shtick is centered on immanent doomsday when God kills everyone but the JWs, who get their very own eternal, self contained prison farm where they can joyously hoe tomatoes and pick apples for all eternity.  Probably even without any internet service.

In 1874 Russell said Christ would return in 1914, but He didn't.  That was changed to 1915.  In 1918 Judge Rutherford said David and the other Old Testament worthies would be resurrected in 1925, and that didn't happen.  In 1938 at the annual Convention of JW in Cincinnati, Rutherford said that no one should marry, pursue a career, or seek higher education because the end of so near.  He repeated that in the 1941 book "Children," and that wasn't so.  In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1875 and that wasn't so.  In 1989 they predicted the end of the world before the end of the 20th century and that wasn't so. 

So, this begs the question, if they have never successfully predicted a cataclysmic prophetic event, how can anyone be sure that anything the Governing Body teaches is right about anything?

Hi Five,

In 1876 Russell was convinced by Nelson Barbour that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874.  Russell taught that to his dying day in 1916, and Rutherford continued to teach it until his death in 1941. It wasn't officially changed to 1914 until 1943. 

He taught that it was Armageddon that would END in 1914, "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev.16:14).  They weren't expecting a war to start in 1914, but to end in 1914.  When it obviously didn't, there was an attempt to move it to 1915.

I think you probably meant to say "In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1975 and that wasn't so."

It can get confusing.

Woodzz

  Jehovah's Witness prophecy, confusing?  What in the world ever gave you that idea?   My understanding is that in Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" (2:76-77) published in 1889 it said, "Armageddon will occur in 1914."  On page 98 he wrote, "In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved."  In Watchtower for 3/1/1903 they wrote, "When Uranus and Juipter meet in the humane sign of Aquarius in 1914, the long-promised era will have made a fair start in the work of setting man free to work out his own salvation, and will insure the ultimate realization of dreams and ideals of all poets and sages in history." 

   However, when 1914 passed, they then said, "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915 (The Time Is At Hand, 1915 edition p99). 

Jul 2, 2012 -- 4:21PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 3:05PM, woodzz wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 2:23PM, five_point_dad wrote:

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:51AM, Kemmer wrote:

...See the article for details - the whole issue - also concerning various doomsday predictions we do not believe...

Anymore.  Which is kinda sad because the whole JW shtick is centered on immanent doomsday when God kills everyone but the JWs, who get their very own eternal, self contained prison farm where they can joyously hoe tomatoes and pick apples for all eternity.  Probably even without any internet service.

In 1874 Russell said Christ would return in 1914, but He didn't.  That was changed to 1915.  In 1918 Judge Rutherford said David and the other Old Testament worthies would be resurrected in 1925, and that didn't happen.  In 1938 at the annual Convention of JW in Cincinnati, Rutherford said that no one should marry, pursue a career, or seek higher education because the end of so near.  He repeated that in the 1941 book "Children," and that wasn't so.  In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1875 and that wasn't so.  In 1989 they predicted the end of the world before the end of the 20th century and that wasn't so. 

So, this begs the question, if they have never successfully predicted a cataclysmic prophetic event, how can anyone be sure that anything the Governing Body teaches is right about anything?

Hi Five,

In 1876 Russell was convinced by Nelson Barbour that Jesus had returned invisibly in 1874.  Russell taught that to his dying day in 1916, and Rutherford continued to teach it until his death in 1941. It wasn't officially changed to 1914 until 1943. 

He taught that it was Armageddon that would END in 1914, "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev.16:14).  They weren't expecting a war to start in 1914, but to end in 1914.  When it obviously didn't, there was an attempt to move it to 1915.

I think you probably meant to say "In 1968 they said something marvelous was coming in 1975 and that wasn't so."

It can get confusing.

Woodzz

  Jehovah's Witness prophecy, confusing?  What in the world ever gave you that idea?   My understanding is that in Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" (2:76-77) published in 1889 it said, "Armageddon will occur in 1914."  On page 98 he wrote, "In the coming 26 years, all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved."  In Watchtower for 3/1/1903 they wrote, "When Uranus and Juipter meet in the humane sign of Aquarius in 1914, the long-promised era will have made a fair start in the work of setting man free to work out his own salvation, and will insure the ultimate realization of dreams and ideals of all poets and sages in history." 

   However, when 1914 passed, they then said, "In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915 (The Time Is At Hand, 1915 edition p99). 

In his Studies #2 p.76-77, it doesn't have Armageddon but it does say the times of the Gentiles would end in 1914.

On page 101 of the same book it says Armageddon, "the battle of the great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14)" would end in 1915 with the complete overthrow of earth's government.

And, yes, on p.99 it says 1915 is when the times of the Gentiles would end.

So it wasn't in 1876 that Russell said Jesus would return in 1914, as you said before.  It was in 1876 that Russell said Jesus would had returned already, in 1874.

Holly