======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Psalm 19 Restored Date: 11 Nov 1995 19:31:18 GMT Organization: Bible Study Posting Lines: 72 Approved: adams@spss.com Message-ID: <482tm6$dv@netsrv2.spss.com> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: internet.spss.com Psalm 19: A Psalm of David. 1 The heavens declare the glory of God: and the earth proclaims the work of his hands. 2 Day to day utters speech, night to night proclaims knowledge. 3 There are no speeches or words, in which their voices are not heard. 4 Their voice is gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. 6 Their going forth is from the extremity of heaven, to the other end of heaven: and no one shall be hidden from His truth. 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting souls: the testimony of the Lord is faithful, instructing babes. 8 The ordinances of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening tbe eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring for ever and ever: the judgments of the Lord are true, and justified altogether. 10 To be desired more than gold, and much precious stone: sweeter also than honey and the honey-comb. 11 For thy servant keeps to them: in the keeping of them there is great reward. 12 Who will understand his transgressions? purge thou me from my secret sins. 13 And spare thy servant the attack of strangers: if they do not gain dominion over me, then shall I be blameless, and I shall be clear from great sin. 12 So shall the sayings of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be pleasing continually before thee, O Lord my helper, and my redeemer. This restoration is based on the text of the Psalm from a translation of the LXX. Changes have been minimized. Traditional verse numbers are retained. I changed the word "firmament" in verse 1 to "earth," as this was the simplest way to express the meaning of the original in English, although "rocks" could also be meant here. Verse 5 has been deleted as a redaction. Verse 6 has been restored; it extends the idea of verse 4 to the heavens, showing the universality of God's truth. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Re: Psalm 19 Restored Date: 13 Nov 1995 14:02:24 GMT Organization: Bible Study Posting Lines: 170 Approved: adams@spss.com Message-ID: <487j5g$dr@netsrv2.spss.com> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: internet.spss.com In article <483fgh$23h@netsrv2.spss.com>, Dave Washburn wrote: >On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Douglas Cox wrote: >> Psalm 19: A Psalm of David. >> 1 The heavens declare the glory of God: >> and the earth proclaims the work of his hands. >> This restoration is based on the text of the Psalm from a translation >> of the LXX. Changes have been minimized. >> Traditional verse numbers are retained. >> I changed the word "firmament" in verse 1 to "earth," as this was the >> simplest way to express the meaning of the original in English, >> although "rocks" could also be meant here. >Absolutely wrong, based both on the language of the passage and on >well-known principles of Hebrew parallelism. "Firmament" or "expanse" in >this verse is parallel to "heavens." The earth is not parallel in >meaning to the heavens. >> Verse 5 has been deleted as a redaction. >Again, based not on any Hebrew scholarship, but on a ridiculous theory >that has been shown by myself and several others in this group to be a >fantasy. The restoration I have proposed for Psalm 19 is indeed based on careful research, and it is compatible with my work on the restored text of Genesis 1. It is based on the information provided by the prophecy of Daniel, chapter 8, which shows that cosmological corruptions were introduced into the Old Testament by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the "little horn" of the prophecy. Many of the details of this new interpretation of Daniel's prophecy have been discussed in other threads. The verse which I deleted [Verse 5] reads, in the LXX: In the sun he has set his tabernacle; and he comes forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber: he will exult as a giant to run his course. It seems from this text, which represents the oldest version of the Psalm, as though God is pictured as a huge giant who lives in the sun. He is also compared to a bridegroom. But this is not the God of David! There is a discrepancy between the above text and the text in the NKJV, which represents some of the latest scholarship: In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices as a strong man to run its race. Although in the LXX, it is implied that God actually lives inside the sun, in the NKJV, the idea seems to be that the universe or rigid firmament itself is the "tent of the sun," and that both were made by God. So the verse in either version supports the false geocentric cosmology, with its rigid sky, and so does not glorify or honour the God of truth at all, as was David's intention when writing the Psalm. The references to the sun are obvious corruptions of the Hellenistic period, IMO. Apollo was a popular deity in Hellenistic times, and was identified with the sun. He was called "Phoebus" meaning Holy, and was viewed as a cohort of Daphne and other female deities in Greek myths. He was considered to be the god of prophecy. The Hellenized Jews of the 2nd century BC apparently identified him with Yahveh. In the LXX, in Psalm 19:5 and elsewhere, it seems there was an attempt to support this idea by incorporating it in the scriptures. This concept might have originated in Antioch, as there was a temple of Apollo in nearby Daphne. The changes in the scriptures were implemented by Antiochus IV, or his agents, according to Daniel's prophecy. If the LXX contains the original version of the corruption, as seems likely, it may have been partially incorporated into the Hebrew text from the Greek, or absorbed in a modified form. Obviously, verse 5 above is incongruous in the middle of David's beautiful Psalm 19. It seems incredible that no scholars have previously recognized that there was a corruption here, to my knowledge. It is interesting that the identification of God with the sun is also hinted at in the NKJV, in Psalm 84:11. This is revealed as a probable corruption by comparison with the LXX. Here the NKJV has: For the Lord God is a sun and a shield; The Lord will give grace and glory; No good thing will he withhold From those who walk uprightly. The LXX has: For the Lord loves mercy and truth: God will give grace and glory: The Lord will not withhold good things From them that walk in innocence. It is the LXX that has the more correct version, IMHO. Below is another restoration of Psalm 19, made by comparison of various translations, which incorporates the changes mentioned above. The restoration demonstrates unified thought flow through the whole Psalm, that the versions of this Psalm in most Bibles lack. Copyright 1995 by Douglas E. Cox Psalm 19: A Psalm of David. 1 The heavens declare the glory of God: and the earth is telling the work of his hands. 2 Day unto day utters speech, night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech or words, their voice has not been heard, 4 Yet their message goes out through all the earth, and their sayings to the ends of the world. 6 From one end of heaven they go forth, and penetrate to the other end of heaven: and no one is hidden from His truth. 7 The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening tbe eyes. 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true, all of them together are righteous. 10 They are more to be desired than gold, Yes, than much fine gold: They are sweeter than honey from the honeycomb. 11 By them your servant is warned; And in keeping them there is great reward. 12 But who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults. 13 And keep back your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me, Then shall I be blameless, and I shall be innocent of great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart always be pleasing to you, O Lord my strength and my redeemer. -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Re: Psalm 19 Restored Date: 15 Nov 1995 20:10:12 GMT Organization: Bible Study Posting Lines: 410 Approved: adams@spss.com Message-ID: <48dhf4$gch@netsrv2.spss.com> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: internet.spss.com In article <48b0l3$9n9@netsrv2.spss.com>, Dave Washburn wrote: >> >> Psalm 19: A Psalm of David. >> >> 1 The heavens declare the glory of God: >> >> and the earth proclaims the work of his hands. >> >> This restoration is based on the text of the Psalm from a translation >> >> of the LXX. Changes have been minimized. >This translation of verse 1 isn't from the LXX; the word used in the LXX >is STEREWMA, the very word you have claimed is a corruption. So your >"restoration" isn;t based on the LXX, it isn't based on the Hebrew, it's >based on nothing but your own unique and unsupported hypothesis. It is true that the word I have changed to "earth" is 'stereoma' in the Greek and 'raqia' in the Hebrew, and I do not say that they are wrong. I say that the original meaning of 'raqia' was the earth's crust, made of rock, and I mentioned earlier that "rocks" might have been intended when David used the word 'raqia'. Or, it could mean "the rocky crust of the earth," as it refers to what was made on the second day, in the midst of the waters. A possible translation of 'raqia' as used in Genesis 1:6 could be "a solid layer." Now, the word 'stereoma' also means something solid. The meaning, together with the related Greek words are shown below with Strong's numbers. 4731 stereos: stiff, solid, stable, => steadfast, strong. 4732 stereow: to solidify, confirm, => establish, receive strength make strong 4733 stereoma: something established, stable, steadfastness. The word 'stereoma' was commonly used in Hellenistic times to refer to the rigid sky, Zeus. It was the sky that was rigid, and held up all the stars, and rotated daily around the earth, in the geocentric cosmology. The word 'stereoma' is found in the LXX in Psalm 18 [actually it is 17, but corresponds to 18 in the KJV] where, in verse 2, it is translated "firm support." The Lord is my firm support, and my refuge, and my deliverer; my God is my helper, I will hope in him; he is my defender, and the horn of my salvation, and my helper. In the KJV, this reads: The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. I would expect, although I really don't know for sure, a Latin translation of the LXX might say here: The Lord is my "firmament" ... But how would it sound, if this were to be translated: The Lord is my "expanse" ... ? It seems far removed from "The Lord is my firm support" or "the Lord is my rock." It seems to me that in the Greek, one might easily understand that God could be identified with the rigid sky from Psalms 18:2, "The Lord is my 'stereoma". There is even evidence that people did think in terms such as this, as can be seen in a quotation from Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, when he delivered the oration at the dedication of a new domed cathedral in the 3rd century: Such is the great cathedral which throughout the whole world under the sun the great Creator of the universe, the Word, has built, Himself again fashioning this spiritual image on earth of the vaults beyond the skies, so that by the whole creation and by thy rational beings on earth His Father might be honoured and worshipped. The oration is preserved in Eusebius' History of the Church, 10:4. It seems, the good Bishop was suggesting the brand new domed cathedral represented Christ's Father, of whom it was a "spiritual image"! So was he actually thinking Christ's Father was the rigid firmament, that the pagans identified with Zeus, and that he looked like a dome? Hmmm... >> The verse which I deleted [Verse 5] reads, in the LXX: >> In the sun he has set his tabernacle; >> and he comes forth as a bridegroom >> out of his chamber: he will exult as >> a giant to run his course. >> It seems from this text, which represents the oldest version of the >> Psalm, as though God is pictured as a huge giant who lives in the sun. >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one! No serious >reading of this verse could get such an absurd picture. Well, I agree with you that it is absurd, but to the Jews of the 2nd century BC, such an idea would not have seemed all that absurd. Most of the people in the nations round about thought the sun itself was God and there were huge temples in every city for the worship of the sun; to a Jew of those days, it might have seemed quite reasonable to suppose God had a "place in the sun" and "rose early each morning" to send his prophets [as is mentioned many times in the book of Jeremiah]. Think of the comparison between a Jew of those days supposing that God dwelt in the sun, and a modern Christian who thinks it is reasonable to believe that God used evolution and natural selection to produce all the different life forms we see today. In any century but this one, most Christians would have responded with scorn to such a ridiculous suggestion. But today, so many people believe evolution has happened, there are a lot of Christians who have persueded themselves such an idea is not all that silly, and so they call themselves "theistic evolutionists." Its is quite similar really. > Besides, this >translation is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew, and the Hebrew form >is obviously older. Just once in all this stuff let's get real. >> He is also compared to a bridegroom. But this is not the God of David! >It isn't? God is pictured as a husband in the prophets, whose wife >Israel is unfaithful; Jesus used the bridegroom image for himself several >times; in Revelation Jerusalem is pictured as a bride adorned for her >groom, the Lord; God uses marriage images over and over to describe His >relationship with His people. Where do you come up with this stuff? Yes, he does, however none of this supports the idea that the sun is a "bridegroom" in any sense. Actually, in Revelation 12, the imagery used by John has the sun as the clothing of the heavenly woman, which represents the Church. So the idea of the sun being the bridegroom was something John either did not accept as scriptural, or did not even know about, either of which would support the idea that the reference to the sun as a bridegroom in Psalm 19:5 is a corruption. >> There is a discrepancy between the above text and the text in the >> NKJV, which represents some of the latest scholarship: >Actually, the NKJV represents a minimum of scholarhip, since it is little >more than a revision of the Old KJV. >> In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, >> Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, >> And rejoices as a strong man to run its race. >> Although in the LXX, it is implied that God actually lives inside the >> sun, in the NKJV, the idea seems to be that the universe or rigid >> firmament itself is the "tent of the sun," and that both were made by >> God. >It says nothing about the heavens being rigid, and I can't help wondering >how many othe readers are getting sick of you reading this nonexistent >idea into the Scriptures. The idea of God having his tabernacle in the sun actually makes more sense, and is more clearly presented than the concept of the sky itself being a tent for the sun, because, as you say, a tent is generally not rigid. This is why I take the LXX to be the source of the corruption, which came into the Hebrew text from there, in a modified form, and not the other way round. >> So the verse in either version supports the false geocentric >> cosmology, with its rigid sky, and so does not glorify or honour the >> God of truth at all, as was David's intention when writing the Psalm. >> The references to the sun are obvious corruptions of the Hellenistic >> period, IMO. >In neither version does it support any such thing, unless one reads your >decidedly unscriptural and linguistically meaningless anachronisms into >it. I have pointed out again and again that your notions don't square >with the Hebrew language, but you don't have the guts to learn from any >of this. As you see it, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests the sky is rigid; do I have that right? As I see it, there are numerous statements in the Bible that suggest this, but there is a reason, and a good explanation for it; they are corruptions introduced in the Hellenistic period. As you see it, since there are no corruptions in the Bible, there is no need for a prophecy in the book of Daniel to tell us about them, correct? As I see it, the prophecy of Daniel foretold ahead of time that corruptions would be introduced, and what they would be, and who would be responsible. So God was allowing men to corrupt his word, but would eventually reveal it by means of Daniel's prophecy, so that all of it would make perfect sense when the truth was known. As you see it, anyone who thinks there are incorrect statements about cosmology in the Bible must be reading it wrong; is that correct? As I see it, those who see the incorrect statements about cosmology are indeed reading it correctly, but perhaps they draw the wrong conclusions, not realizing the nature or extent of the corruptions which were introduced, and not being aware that God had allowed such corruptions to be made, and that he had actually predicted it ahead of time. Hence they reject the possibility that the Bible is the word of God, for faulty reasons. As you see it, looking at discrepancies and possible evidence of corruptions in the Hebrew text of the OT can have no possible value, because the text is God's word and thus cannot be flawed; is this right? As I see it, there is a need to identify the corruptions in the OT because by the knowledge of what the nature of the corruptions are, that is revealed by Daniel's prophecy, it is possible for us to restore the original text of the scriptures, or at least the information that they contained, which may lead to significant new insights, and new information being discovered, that was hitherto hidden from us. And that was probably God's intention, when he inspired the prophecies of Daniel; as Proverbs 22:12 says: The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor. And it is to the praise and honour of God for us to accept the information he gives with thanks, and believe it, for those foolish, incorrect cosmological statements in the scriptures were not inspired by God, or his prophets; they are corruptions inserted by a Seleucid king in the 2nd century BC. When the Roman Catholic Church in the seventeenth century condemned the Copernican theory and the writings of Galileo, the theologians were certain they stood firmly on the scriptures; however they were relying upon the corruptions introduced by Antiochus IV. When the skeptics in the eighteenth century rejected the Bible, they relied on those same scriptures, not realizing they were corruptions. Thus, when the truth is known, these philosophers and atheists who reject the Bible cannot turn around and blame God for the presence of false statements about cosmology in the Bible. The Aristotlean theologians cannot say it was God who deceived them. The prophecy of Daniel was there all along, that plainly shows the truth of the matter. They just did not understand it. ... >> Obviously, verse 5 above is incongruous in the middle of David's >> beautiful Psalm 19. It seems incredible that no scholars have >> previously recognized that there was a corruption here, to my >> knowledge. >No, what's incredible is that you have so little grasp of Hebrew, of >poetics, or of the structure of Psalm 19 as a Hebrew poem that you can >come up with such drivel and try to pass it off as some sort of divine >revelation. I think I have figured out what is behind your negative responses to my restorations, but feel free to correct anything I have said about your position if it is incorrect. The reason you react, is because you have a basically different framework for your thinking [or point of view, or paradigm] than I do, and so you see no sense at all in what I am saying. Yet because you have this different approach, I don't see that anything you have said is a reason for me discard my conclusions. Here is how I see the problem; the Bible scholars have been working on the premise that the Hebrews obtained their literature and cosmological ideas from the Babylonians, by contact with them during, before and after the captivity. Now I have come along, and on the basis of Daniel's prophecy, stated that no, there are cosmological elements from the Greeks, who were later, and these ideas were not derived from the Babylonians; therefore the original cosmology is obscured in the scriptures. To illustrate, I will present a discussion of the first part of Psalm 19 from one of the Bible scholars, Elmer A. Leslie, a Professor of Hebrew and O.T. Literature. This is from the Abindon Bible Commentary [1929 ed.] p. 523. ====begin included text======== Psalm 19. Revelation of God in Nature and in the Law This psalm is composed of two originally independent poems. (1) The Symphony of the Heavens (vv. 1-6). (2) A Hymn in Praise of the Law (vv. 7-14). (1) The first poem has for background Babylonian mythology, as the aIlusions in vv. 5c, 6 clearly show. The Babylonians and Assyrians personified the natural bodies and forces. Perhaps it was during the reign of Manasseh (7th cent. B.C.) through the worship of Shamash the sun god, then introduced (2 Kings 21:3f.), that such ideas found entrance into the background ideas of Israel (Gressmann). But these ideas merely provide a kind of poetic vehicle for the loftier and profounder thought of Israel. This is one of the most majestic and beautiful of the nature hymns in the Psalter. 1,2. The Language of tbe Heavens. Through Plato we know of the celestial harmony of the spheres, probably of Oriental origin. The heavens are uttering a marvelous melody. The heavens declare -- better, "The heavens keep recounting" and "the firmament keeps revealing" -- the participles suggest continuous action. They have as their theme "the glory of God", i.e., the majestic nature of God. One day utters it to the next, pouring it out, bubbling it forth in eager, spontaneous utterance. One night declares (a poetic word) to the next, the wisdom at the heart of the majesty. 3,4 Tbe Celestial Harmony of the Spheres. No human ear hears this marvelous melody, yet it reaches the far corners of the earth. In v. 4 "for their line" read "their voice". 5,6. A Hymn to the Sun. Primitive man saw in the ball of tbe sun a god. On a tablet of Nabu-apalidin (860 B.c.) Shamash, the sun god, is said to have a tabernacle in the sea. He too was a bridegroom, and his bride, Aia, dwelt in that tabernacle. Shamash goes forth out of the sea and pursues his course, overcoming demons as he fights his way (Gressmann, The Psalmists, pp. 16f.). An echo of this Babylonian conception provides the figures of speech for the loftier Hebrew thought. The sun is great, but behind the sun is Jehovah. The sun reveals his majesty. (2) The union of vv. 1-6 and vv. 7-14 in one psalm is probably due to similarity of theme: the revelation of God in nature and in the Law. The key to an understanding of these verses is the attitude of Judaism towards revealed religion. G.F. Moore stated this with clear insight. "The corner-stone of Judaism is the idea of revealed religion. God has not only made himself known to men, but has declared to them his will for man's whole life. This revelation the Jews Possess in their Holy Scriptures and in its complement, the unwritten Law.... (Note--The oral Law was revealed at Sinai no less than the written Law.)..." ========end included text========= There are a number of points I would like to make from this: -- Leslie assumes there has been a lot of pagan Babylonian influence in the writing of Psalm 19. -- He apparently thinks there are two poems that have been crudely joined together. It does not occur to him that there may be a single Psalm whic has been tampered with, by insertion of the section referring to the sun. -- He quotes another scholar as suggesting there was pagan influence from sun worship in the Psalm. -- He mentions Plato but suggests Plato got his ideas from the east; I suppose he means to suggest that both Plato and the author of the Psalm used the same source. He does not consider any possible influence of Plato on the Jews. Nor does he consider any possible influence of the cosmology of the Hellenistic period, although worship of Apollo as the sun was quite prevalent at that time. >> It is interesting that the identification of God with the sun is also >> hinted at in the NKJV, in Psalm 84:11. This is revealed as a probable >> corruption by comparison with the LXX. Here the NKJV has: >> For the Lord God is a sun and a shield; >> The Lord will give grace and glory; >> No good thing will he withhold >> From those who walk uprightly. >> The LXX has: >> For the Lord loves mercy and truth: >> God will give grace and glory: >> The Lord will not withhold good things >> From them that walk in innocence. >> It is the LXX that has the more correct version, IMHO. >Hardly! In the first place, the "harder reading" principle works very >nicely in this passage; in the second place, the "sun and shield" >metaphor is a common one, and is simple poetic imagery. There is no >attempt to identify God with the sun. Once again, I wish you would go >learn something about the matters you address before you make such a fool >of yourself. Well, as I see it, the outcome of all this is, God inspired his prophets to write the Bible, and passed it down through various people and has given it to us, and over the past century or two the Bible scholars have studied it thoroughly, and interpreted all of it, identified the authors, and the dates, etc. Now, through Daniel's prophecy, God is telling us, "Now, look here! That bit is not supposed to be in there [e.g., Joshua 10:12-14; Psa 19:5] and this word over here [raqia] means something else!" The Bible scholars, though, will not allow God to have any say at all in what His word really means! They are shocked and horrified at the thought! Therefore, they must do their level best to show God did not say what he did, or mean what he said, or even have any interest in how people understand the Bible today! They would have us believe, their interpretations are the only valid ones, and God, and his prophecies, such as the one in Daniel 8, must not be allowed to interfere! Do I have this right, Dave? -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Re: Psalm 19 Restored Date: 20 Nov 1995 14:02:49 GMT Organization: Bible Study Posting Lines: 96 Approved: adams@spss.com Message-ID: <48q1q9$hp@netsrv2.spss.com> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: internet.spss.com In article <48g57v$1ei@netsrv2.spss.com>, kirk@white.lambton.on.ca (Bob Kirk) wrote: >I would like to ask Douglas publicly, why do you feel the books of the >Bible, that have been the guides for generations, need your >'Restoration'? The obvious answer is that there are some corruptions in the OT that the Bible scholars have missed. The insertion of verse 5 in Psalm 19 is just one of them. These corruptions, when they are identified, form a consistent pattern. They are cosmological, and tend to support the characteristically Hellenistic Greek ideas of the rigid sky, and worship of Apollo as the sun, which was prevalent amongst Hellenistic Jews in the time of Antiochus IV. Comparison of my restored text of Psalm 19 with the traditional text shows there is a much simpler, more coherent thought flow in my restoration, which is a vast improvement over the corrupted text of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc. This is a truly beautiful Psalm, and its message is made more clear and forceful in my restoration. > And, if you have ever read the last chapter of the Book of >Revelation in regards to what it says about adding to or subtracting from >the Bible? Rev 22:18-19: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Yes; however, it is Daniel's prophecy of chapter 8 that has exposed the cosmological corruptions that occur in the Old Testament, as I have explained at length in other posts. Anyone wanting more details may send me a request by e-mail. The "little horn" of Daniel's prophecy was Antiochus IV; in verses 10-12 he is said to have cast stars to the ground, and the host of heaven, and the place of God's sanctuary [makon], and the truth. All four things were "cast to the ground." I interpreted all this as the introduction of corruptions in Genesis 1 that identified the 'raqia' with heaven, whereas before, it was the crust of the earth. The cosmology of scripture was corrupted, and that is how "truth" was cast to the ground, hence a restoration is necessary. This is foretold in other prophecies, too. [See Acts 3:21] > Finally, to what end are you doing this? Certainly it will not >bring the word to those who have not yet heard, since they will see >confusion. It will not eddify those who have seen, as it will cause >some unjustified questioning. The passages I have identified as corruptions, such as Psalm 19:5, Joshua 10:12-14, etc. have been a stumblingblock to belief in the gospel for some. Those who have not been troubled by the cosmological ideas in scripture may not appreciate fully the effect they have had on people in the past. It would be surprising if the identification of these corruptions by means of Daniel's prophecy does not help to restore faith and belief of some Christians. >To all Christians: If you are unsure of scriptural meaning, ask the Holy >Spirit, who IS the Living Word of God for insight, and do not depend on >'restorations' done by people who claim to know the truth. If someone comes along, telling you what to believe about the Bible, and does not "claim to know the truth", why would you listen to him? What is he teaching, then? If it is not the truth, what is it? Fiction, maybe? :-) >Interpretations of accepted unchangeable scripture are one thing, but >changes to scripture to suit one's desires or ideas is wrong. That's what Antiochus IV encouraged those Hellenizers amongst the Jews of the 2nd century BC to do; they did just that. They changed the scriptures to make them conform to their own foolish cosmological ideas, as in Psalm 19:5, for example. God does not have his "tabernacle in the sun," as the LXX says here. The remarkable thing is, none of the Hebrew scholars have identified this as a corruption that supported the identification of Yahveh with Apollo, dating from the Hellenistic period. What is the matter with them? Oh yes; they were unable to interpret Daniel's prophecy correctly, and many of them, following the defender of paganism and Plato's philosophy Porphyry (AD 233-304), foolishly labelled it a pious fraud by a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes! -- Douglas Cox ======== From: tcc@sentex.net (Douglas Cox) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Re: Psalm 19 Restored Date: 20 Nov 1995 14:02:52 GMT Organization: Bible Study Posting Lines: 580 Approved: adams@spss.com Message-ID: <48q1qc$hu@netsrv2.spss.com> Reply-To: tcc@sentex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: internet.spss.com In article <48g147$n2t@netsrv2.spss.com>, Dave Washburn wrote: >> >> >> Psalm 19: A Psalm of David. >> >> >> 1 The heavens declare the glory of God: >> >> >> and the earth proclaims the work of his hands. >> >> >> This restoration is based on the text of the Psalm from a translation >> >> >> of the LXX. Changes have been minimized. >> >This translation of verse 1 isn't from the LXX; the word used in the LXX >> >is STEREWMA, the very word you have claimed is a corruption. So your >> >"restoration" isn;t based on the LXX, it isn't based on the Hebrew, it's >> >based on nothing but your own unique and unsupported hypothesis. >> It is true that the word I have changed to "earth" is 'stereoma' in >> the Greek and 'raqia' in the Hebrew, and I do not say that they are >> wrong. I say that the original meaning of 'raqia' was the earth's >> crust, made of rock, and I mentioned earlier that "rocks" might have >> been intended when David used the word 'raqia'. Or, it could mean "the >> rocky crust of the earth," as it refers to what was made on the second >> day, in the midst of the waters. A possible translation of 'raqia' as >> used in Genesis 1:6 could be "a solid layer." >There's still no support for this. The fact that you say it means only >that you say it, nothing more. As I have pointed out many, many times, >the Hebrew language disagrees with you. I'm more inclined to follow it. You are welcome to follow whatever you wish; however I doubt that your statement 'raqia' means "expanse' is supported by the Hebrew language. This is a very recent idea ... what, precisely, is the support for it? "Expanse" is a very vague term. Apparently, you do not think 'raqia' means something solid, or 'stereoma', which is a translation of it, or, in the Latin, 'firmament', which has the root "firma" in it, that almost everyone recognises as "solid" as in "terra firma" -- solid earth. Most Hebrew scholars over the centuries have understood 'raqia' as meaning something solid; they has taken it to refer to the rigid rotating sky of the geocentric system. If 'raqia' means anything at all, it must be something solid, IMO. It is derived from 'raqa' [Strongs # 7554: to pound the earth (as a sign of passion) -- by analogy to expand (by hammering) ... beat, make broad, spread abroad (into plates) stamp, stretch]. All these activities apply to solids and not to nebulous gases, such as air, or empty space. How could one "pound" the air, or "stretch" space? It makes little sense. All Jewish and Christian scholars thought 'raqia' meant the rigid sky, for centuries. I think most Jewish scholars still do, but I could be wrong about this. In his book "Understanding Genesis" [Schocken Books, NY, 1966] Nahum S. Sarna has an illustration of "the biblical conception of the world" on p.5, that shows a solid firmament holding back the upper waters, and the stars, and sun and moon are below it. There is no tangible support that I am aware of for the idea that 'raqia' means 'expanse'; I cannot recall that you have offered any support for this position. >> Now, the word 'stereoma' also means something solid. The meaning, >> together with the related Greek words are shown below with Strong's >> numbers. >> 4731 stereos: stiff, solid, stable, => steadfast, strong. >> 4732 stereow: to solidify, confirm, => establish, receive strength >> make strong >> 4733 stereoma: something established, stable, steadfastness. >You really should learn some Hebrew and Greek instead of depending on >Strong's (though the principle "Strong's for the strong-willed" may apply >here). Heaven knows you're smart enough to learn them in a couple of >years, and you would be able to see the problems with this kind of >approach. Strong built his ideas on the notion that words have an >inherent meaning, and that etymology was the key to understanding a >word's "true meaning." We now know that this is not the case; words mean >what they mean because a society chooses to use them that way. Young's Analytical Concordance gives the same meanings for the above words as Strong. So why don't you tell us what you think 'stereoma' means, and show why you think both Young and Strong are incorrect? And give some references to support what you say, please. > This is >why English "breakfast" can refer to the first meal of the day, or to a >particular set of food groups taken at any time of day. Usage determines >the meanings of words, not roots, not "inherent" or "basic" meanings, or >anything else. Do you mean that if enough modern Bible scholars use "expanse" as the translation of 'raqia', that's what its meaning will be? There is not much you can do about all the sholars of centuries ago, who discussed cosmology and Genesis, and took 'raqia' as meaning a rigid sky, and tried to explain the upper waters, etc. >[I have snipped an extended discussion of the word "stereoma" because it >is irrelevant. Its a shame you snipped this rather than discuss it. Oh well... > My point was that Doug's translation "earth" was not >based on the LXX as he claimed it was. This is false, Dave. I did not say that; what I did say, referring to the original restoration that I presented in this thread, was that the text of Psalm 19 that I presented was based on a translation of the LXX, which I had modified in the ways I specifically mentioned, otherwise it was intact. Subsequently I presented another version which was based on other translations, with basically the same modifications, that I consider to more cloasely reflect the original text written by David. Retract this incorrect statement please. >> >> In the sun he has set his tabernacle; >> >> and he comes forth as a bridegroom >> >> out of his chamber: he will exult as >> >> a giant to run his course. >> >> It seems from this text, which represents the oldest version of the >> >> Psalm, as though God is pictured as a huge giant who lives in the sun. >> >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one! No serious >> >reading of this verse could get such an absurd picture. >> Well, I agree with you that it is absurd, but to the Jews of the 2nd >> century BC, such an idea would not have seemed all that absurd. Most >> of the people in the nations round about thought the sun itself was >> God and there were huge temples in every city for the worship of the >> sun; to a Jew of those days, it might have seemed quite reasonable to >> suppose God had a "place in the sun" and "rose early each morning" to >> send his prophets [as is mentioned many times in the book of >> Jeremiah]. >You sure like to slam the Jews of the second century BC. Get a clue, >Doug: they weren't as stupid as you give them credit for. There is no >historical basis for your slams against them. We know beyond doubt that >the Babylonian Exile cured them of idolatry and worship of created >things. This is Dave Washburn's theory, not supported by evidence, or even a quote, or a reference, whereas I have given many examples to the contrary, such as the quotation from 1 Maccabees 1, and the one from E.R. Bevan, that I believe you dismissed as being a "secondary" source, and I can support it with more references if anyone is interested. > I don't care what the nations around them did, and neither did >they. Veiled references to factions that sold out to the Greeks in other >ways say nothing about your defamatory comments about Jews of the time in >general, and if I were of Jewish heritage I would be outraged at your >ridiculous, demeaning caricature of my ancestors of this time. You keep >grabbing pre-exilic events and trying to drag them into a post-exilic >setting. YOU CAN'T DO THAT! It's improper exegesis and an insult to the >people who lived in that time. This is utter nonsense, Dave. I think many Jews are well aware that there are problems with the cosmology of the scriptures. Some have expressed enthusiasm about my interpretation of Daniel's prophecy in chapter 8. What I meant by the reference to the statements about God "rising early" and sending the prophets, that are found in Jeremiah, [Jer 7:25 is an example] was that these are corruptions that were inserted in the hellenistic period, probably in the 2nd century BC or later. We know God does not really rise early in the morning, because he does not sleep, and so does not go to bed. But the agents of Antiochus IV who added the bit about the "tabernacle for the sun" in Psalm 19:5 [or as it is in the LXX: "In the sun he has set his tabernacle"] apparently thought that God rose with the sun each day (or that he lived in it) and so they added these statements into the text of Jeremiah. .. >> > Besides, this >> >translation is from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew, and the Hebrew form >> >is obviously older. Just once in all this stuff let's get real. >> >> He is also compared to a bridegroom. But this is not the God of David! >> >It isn't? God is pictured as a husband in the prophets, whose wife >> >Israel is unfaithful; Jesus used the bridegroom image for himself several >> >times; in Revelation Jerusalem is pictured as a bride adorned for her >> >groom, the Lord; God uses marriage images over and over to describe His >> >relationship with His people. Where do you come up with this stuff? >> Yes, he does, however none of this supports the idea that the sun is a >> "bridegroom" in any sense. >Doug, you do this constantly and it's really irritating. I didn't say, >and actually neither did you, that we were talking about the sun as a >bridegroom. We were talking about God pictured as a bridegroom. Yes, I agreed with your statement that God is pictured as a husband of Israel, etc. See above. > You >keep switching versions between the Hebrew and the Greek in order to >dodge the points I score against your ideas. Either face what I actually >say or admit you're wrong. No, if you read what I wrote, I agreed with your statement that God is pictured as a husband of Israel. I then commented on the idea of the sun being a bridegroom. It is foreign to the scriptures. Some of the critical scholars have also mentioned this. >> Actually, in Revelation 12, the imagery >> used by John has the sun as the clothing of the heavenly woman, which >> represents the Church. So the idea of the sun being the bridegroom was >> something John either did not accept as scriptural, or did not even >> know about, either of which would support the idea that the reference >> to the sun as a bridegroom in Psalm 19:5 is a corruption. >See above. This is another dodge and a cop-out. You said the bridegroom >image was not the God of David. I showed that you're wrong, and all of a >sudden we're talking about the sun. Be honest or be gone. I said, and I quote: The verse which I deleted [Verse 5] reads, in the LXX: In the sun he has set his tabernacle; and he comes forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber: he will exult as a giant to run his course. It seems from this text, which represents the oldest version of the Psalm, as though God is pictured as a huge giant who lives in the sun. He is also compared to a bridegroom. But this is not the God of David! That is what we are talking about. Dave. I say David didn't describe God as huge giant, bridegroom or not, who has his tabernacle in the sun, as the LXX says. Do you think he did? >[snip] >> >> So the verse in either version supports the false geocentric >> >> cosmology, with its rigid sky, and so does not glorify or honour the >> >> God of truth at all, as was David's intention when writing the Psalm. >> >> The references to the sun are obvious corruptions of the Hellenistic >> >> period, IMO. >> >In neither version does it support any such thing, unless one reads your >> >decidedly unscriptural and linguistically meaningless anachronisms into >> >it. I have pointed out again and again that your notions don't square >> >with the Hebrew language, but you don't have the guts to learn from any >> >of this. >> As you see it, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests the sky is >> rigid; do I have that right? >At last! Something you said is right! So, at last you have committed yourself to something, however wrong it may be. For an example, please take a look at Job 37:18, re the sky being "strong". Homer said it was "strong" too. He pictured Zeus boasting he could holding up the sun, moon, sea, and earth and all the other gods and dangle them from a golden chain attached to the sky. This was to show the sky is "strong." That's propbably what is behind this corruption. >> As I see it, there are numerous >> statements in the Bible that suggest this, but there is a reason, and >> a good explanation for it; they are corruptions introduced in the >> Hellenistic period. >But as I have pointed out many times in many ways, we have only your word >to take for it, and you have shown that you know nothing at all about >either Hebrew or Greek, nor do you know anything about ancient cosmology, >the meanings of words and how to find out what they are. So there is >still no reason, good bad or indifferent, to accept what you say about >these passages or the words that underly them. Of course, there are going to be some who are quite fond of the passage about the sun having a tabernacle, and you seem to be one. So what is this tabernacle, in your opinion? I would be very interested to know what you think it is. And no doubt there are some who relish the idea of waters "above the heavens", that are mentioned in Psalm 148:4: Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Is this one of the passages you think is genuine, Dave? What are these "waters above the heavens?" And I suppose there are also people who are inspired and comforted by the idea that the sky is strong, (as it would need to be, I suppose, to hold up the upper waters) as mentioned in Job 37:18: Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? So, how do you explain this idea of the sky being "strong"? I think it could be something taken right out of Homer, who mentions an "iron heaven," and the above was probably inserted into the book of Job in the 2nd century BC. But the modern scholars have all missed these insertions, not having understood Daniel 8, which exposes the nature of these corruptions, and identifies Antiochus IV, the 'little horn' as the one who initiated them. Do you think the above verse means the "expanse" is strong? And isn't the word for "spread out" in this one 'raqa', that is related to 'raqia' which is translated "firmament" in the KJV? Here again, there is an association between something "strong", and the word 'raqa'. >> As you see it, since there are no corruptions in the Bible, there is >> no need for a prophecy in the book of Daniel to tell us about them, >> correct? >There are two statements here, and I have to address them separately. >The first statement is wrong: there are textual corruptions in the Bible, >sure. Even the Masoretes recognized this. There's an excellent article >in the current issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature about >restoring a corrupt passage in Isaiah. But you are using "corruption" in >a completely different sense, one that demeans the Bible, the God who >inspired it, everyone who investigates it, and the ancient Jews who read >it. The kind you're talking about, no, I don't believe there are such >corruptions, and you still haven't shown me any reason why I should. >The second statement is correct. I have dealt with your hobby-horse >Daniel passage many times too, and you're still not listening. Your >attitude is "This is what it says, whether it says it or not!" See, you think corruptions identified by scholars are okay; but those identified by the Bible itself, in Daniel's prophecy, [the cosmological ones], you deny! >> As I see it, the prophecy of Daniel foretold ahead of time >> that corruptions would be introduced, and what they would be, and who >> would be responsible. So God was allowing men to corrupt his word, but >> would eventually reveal it by means of Daniel's prophecy, so that all >> of it would make perfect sense when the truth was known. >And I have shown that you are wrong. Only in your own mind, Dave. > It says nothing about corruptions >of the Scriptures, and your abuse of apocalyptic language is about as far >off the mark as it's possible to get. But you don't have what it takes >to face that prospect, do you? That's why I'm here, to face the objections you want to raise against my thesis, and answer them. >> As you see it, anyone who thinks there are incorrect statements about >> cosmology in the Bible must be reading it wrong; is that correct? >Oh, is this a wide-open statement! This is a misrepresentation of the >whole conversation that you want to use to build a case based on sweeping >generalizations. Rubbish! I invited you to accurately state your position. Why don't you? > No way, Doug. I won't play into your game. Revise >this statement so it actually reflects something we've discussed and I'll >reply. As you see it, anyone (unless he is a Hebrew scholar who Dave Washburn admires) who thinks there are incorrect statements about cosmology in the Bible must be reading it wrong; is that correct? >> As I >> see it, those who see the incorrect statements about cosmology are >> indeed reading it correctly, but perhaps they draw the wrong >> conclusions, not realizing the nature or extent of the corruptions >> which were introduced, and not being aware that God had allowed such >> corruptions to be made, and that he had actually predicted it ahead of >> time. Hence they reject the possibility that the Bible is the word of >> God, for faulty reasons. >Once again, your intentions are good, but you're building your edifice on >mud. It is not necessary to rewrite the Bible in order to satisfy its >critics. That is your most fundamental blunder, and if it continues to >go uncorrected, your usefulness to the Kingdom of God will be rendered null. Hmmm... But I am not presenting my restoration of Psalm 19 "in order to satisfy its critics." It is to to the honour of God, who inspired David by his Spirit, that I have done it. Not for the critics. Why would I try to satisfy them? >> As you see it, looking at discrepancies and possible evidence of >> corruptions in the Hebrew text of the OT can have no possible value, >> because the text is God's word and thus cannot be flawed; is this >> right? >No, it's not right. I never said such a thing and I resent you trying to >pass me off as this kind of ostrich. The big problem is, you haven't >shown any discrepancies; all you have shown is that you can mis-define >words, read things into passages that aren't there, and otherwise >manipulate evidence in order to rewrite the Bible the way you want it to be. I think this totally misrepresents what I have done. I have shown there are several passages where discrepancies occur between readings of the LXX and the KJV. I have proposed that the 'raqia' of Genesis 1 formerly meant the earth's crust, as many others have also supposed, independently. This implies the popular notion that the 'raqia' means "expanse" is wrong, and that is why Dave has objected. To claim I am "rewriting the Bible" in any sense is absurd. I have merely "restored" some passages more nearly to their original meaning, which in every case, is consistent with other related scriptures. No new ideas, unsupported by other scriptures, have been introduced in my restored text. >> As I see it, there is a need to identify the corruptions in the >> OT because by the knowledge of what the nature of the corruptions are, >> that is revealed by Daniel's prophecy, it is possible for us to >> restore the original text of the scriptures, or at least the >> information that they contained, which may lead to significant new >> insights, and new information being discovered, that was hitherto >> hidden from us. >To paraphrase Jesus: "Do not use vain repetitions as Doug Cox does, >because he thinks he will be heard because of his many words." This is >just saying the same thing over and over, and that still can't infuse any >truth into it. This is hardly a "paraphrase" of Jesus, when he said, "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking." [Matt 6:7] It is more like a travesty. And, what I wrote above is quite true: I have shown how Psalm 19 can be restored, so it actually reads better, and its message is clearer and more self consistent than it is in any Bible version I have seen. This is a true statement, Dave. >[more vain repetition snipped] >> >> Obviously, verse 5 above is incongruous in the middle of David's >> >> beautiful Psalm 19. It seems incredible that no scholars have >> >> previously recognized that there was a corruption here, to my >> >> knowledge. >> >No, what's incredible is that you have so little grasp of Hebrew, of >> >poetics, or of the structure of Psalm 19 as a Hebrew poem that you can >> >come up with such drivel and try to pass it off as some sort of divine >> >revelation. >> I think I have figured out what is behind your negative responses to >> my restorations, but feel free to correct anything I have said about >> your position if it is incorrect. The reason you react, is because you >> have a basically different framework for your thinking [or point of >> view, or paradigm] than I do, and so you see no sense at all in what I >> am saying. Yet because you have this different approach, I don't see >> that anything you have said is a reason for me discard my conclusions. >I'll let other readers be the judges of this last statement. As for the >rest of it, that's about as vague as it can possibly get. The reason I >reject your "restorations" is because they are historically inaccurate, >linguistically impossible, have a total disregard for the type of >literature we are dealing with, read things in that aren't there, and >ignore actual evidence from exegesis of the Hebrew text, which >incidentally you can't read and so have no business trying to rewrite. >In reality, absolutely nothing you have said about my position is correct. Your statement referring to "the Hebrew text, which incidentally you can't read and so have no business trying to rewrite" is interesting. I have not attempted to write any Hebrew. Rather, I have presented my restorations in English. But, the implications of what you say here seem to limit God's Spirit, and its power to enlighten us with truth, to those who have bothered to learn Hebrew or Greek! This is just an impression one could derive from your statement above. Please correct this impression of mine, if it is wrong. Now, I think it is clear to anyone, God's Spirit is not bound to work in Hebrew. It is utterly foolish, IMO, for anyone to suppose that it is. David apparenty has the attitude that knowing Hebrew is somehow essential for one to properly interpret and understand the OT; however, although I am learned in Hebrew, I am confident that my proposed restoration of Psalm 19 will stand up to scrutiny. David's repeated exhortations for me to learn Hebrew remind me a little of those first century Jewish converts wanting to get gentile Christians to sumbit to circumcision! They evidently thought this somehow qualified them for the grace of God and the Spirit thay had already received! But one's understanding the Bible does not depend on knowing the original languages. After having interpreted Daniel's prophecy, am I supposed to go and learn Hebrew to legitimize my interpretation? What rubbish! Surely, if knowledge of Hebrew was of any use at all for discovering the correct interpretation of Daniel 8, some Hebrew scholar would have come up with an explanation by now. And wasn't the original of this chapter written in Aramaic? So why would knowledge of Hebrew be of any help at all? >> Here is how I see the problem; the Bible scholars have been working on >> the premise that the Hebrews obtained their literature and >> cosmological ideas from the Babylonians, by contact with them during, >> before and after the captivity. >Show me when I have mentioned Babylonian cosmology, Doug. Hint: I NEVER >HAVE! I have never mentioned anybody's cosmology, I have consistently >talked ONLY about the meaning of the Hebrew text. You can't deal with >that, can you? I did not say this was your position; however it is a commonly held view of many of the scholars; if you are not one, then fine, it does not apply to you. >> >> It is interesting that the identification of God with the sun is also >> >> hinted at in the NKJV, in Psalm 84:11. This is revealed as a probable >> >> corruption by comparison with the LXX. Here the NKJV has: >> >> For the Lord God is a sun and a shield; >> >> The Lord will give grace and glory; >> >> No good thing will he withhold >> >> From those who walk uprightly. >> >> The LXX has: >> >> For the Lord loves mercy and truth: >> >> God will give grace and glory: >> >> The Lord will not withhold good things >> >> From them that walk in innocence. >> >> It is the LXX that has the more correct version, IMHO. >> >Hardly! In the first place, the "harder reading" principle works very >> >nicely in this passage; in the second place, the "sun and shield" >> >metaphor is a common one, and is simple poetic imagery. There is no >> >attempt to identify God with the sun. Once again, I wish you would go >> >learn something about the matters you address before you make such a fool >> >of yourself. >> Well, as I see it, the outcome of all this is, God inspired his >> prophets to write the Bible, and passed it down through various people >> and has given it to us, and over the past century or two the Bible >> scholars have studied it thoroughly, and interpreted all of it, >> identified the authors, and the dates, etc. >This is meaningless! It doesn't address the poetic language of the >passage at all. Once again, we are dodging the real issue. Smoke and mirrors... >> Now, through Daniel's prophecy, God is telling us, "Now, look here! >> That bit is not supposed to be in there [e.g., Joshua 10:12-14; Psa >> 19:5] and this word over here [raqia] means something else!" >Blah blah blah...If this is how you see it, you need new goggles. More smoke and mirrors... >> The Bible scholars, though, will not allow God to have any say at all >> in what His word really means! They are shocked and horrified at the >> thought! >My, we do have a high opinion of ourself! So you are the ONLY one in the >ENTIRE WORLD who is willing to let God have any say about these things? >Once again, you give yourself far too much credit, engage in outrageous >generalizations, and assume what you are setting out to prove. Again, S&M. Typical ranting, much like one who makes truly original proposals might expect from defenders of the =status quo=, which is darkness and ignorance. They said similar things about Luther, didn't they? >> Therefore, they must do their level best to show God did not >> say what he did, or mean what he said, or even have any interest in >> how people understand the Bible today! They would have us believe, >> their interpretations are the only valid ones, and God, and his >> prophecies, such as the one in Daniel 8, must not be allowed to >> interfere! Do I have this right, Dave? >Nope. Once again I am reduced to the words of Kermit the Frog: "That is >absolutely amazing. You are absolutely, 100% wrong. You didn't get one >thing right." But, Dave, your own words indicate this is exactly what you are doing. You don't want Daniel's prophecy to say something that might upset your flimsy, unsupported notions about 'raqia' = "expanse", whatever that means. BTW, would you please explain what you think it does mean? -- Douglas Cox