Heavens == Space

[zachdyer]

We should change the word "heavens" to "space". That would make more sense to the modern society. It just seems like a lot of times when we read "heavens" it is referring to space. Look at this verse:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

Now read this:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out space like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

[vonlein]

This is an intriguing idea, but here we get into the dilemma around what meaning we are actually trying to communicate to a modern audience.

"Space" was not a concept that the author or audience of the text was familiar with. Their understanding of the cosmos was that the dead literally reside/rest under our feet, and that God and the spiritual world are located above our heads through doors in the physical dome upon which the stars are hung. This understanding was never directly challenged in the canon of Scripture (hence the trouble over Galileo and Copernicus).

None of it actually makes sense to us today in a literal sense, so trying to shoehorn a modern term into this ancient text seems like it would end up more confusing than before. It seems like you'd want to keep the literary sense, focusing on the meaning beyond the "facts", not force a literal term into the text. After all, God doesn't "sit above the circle of earth", nor can I picture "stretching out space like a curtain" in any scientific sense. Now, the meaning of the text as a whole has deeper truth that is not challenged by the limited understanding it was communicated through.

Let the text communicate with the language originally understood by the people God was speaking to at the time, or this thread could pull out a lot of material.

I do agree that "heaven/heavens" are far too often thought of in an afterlife sense when they're meant to imply "the sky" in context. We're just not accustomed to that usage as much any more. Maybe use sky-like terms instead of space terms?

Just my 2c.

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the sky like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

On Sep 14, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

We should change the word "heavens" to "space". That would make more sense to the modern society. It just seems like a lot of times when we read "heavens" it is referring to space. Look at this verse:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

Now read this:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out space like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310.

[zachdyer]

Okay but space is being stretched and we don't know what is stretching it unless we assume it is God just as this verse seems to be saying to us.

[vonlein]

Hm. I guess I would be reading this as poetry which uses metaphorical language to speak of the author's experience of and understanding of God, not a scientific text being dictated from above.

It just doesn't make sense to speak of space between stretched out like a curtain in a literal sense. Right? But if you thought the universe was a dome above your head, it would make sense to speak of God stretching out the sky like a canvas on a frame—a very beautiful and meaningful metaphorical picture of the power and majesty of the Divine.

On Sep 14, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Okay but space is being stretched and we don't know what is stretching it unless we assume it is God just as this verse seems to be saying to us.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140224097.

[zachdyer]

I guess I never thought of it like that. This Job book is a fascinating one. To think this is the oldest book in the Bible with such profound wisdom found in it.

[vonlein]

This is why translation from 2,800-year-old texts in dead languages that have hardly any linguistic relation to English and come out of ancient non-Western cultures with thinking completely foreign to post-Enlightenment brains is considered an art form, and why we'll never have "the perfect" translation. Which I, as someone who loves the Bible and aspires to do translations in some context, believe is endlessly exciting and challenging :)

Must take the original audiences, contexts, and literary forms into account, plus make compromises and decisions as to the direction you'll take the text—paraphrase, transliteration, etc. Every translation is inherently an interpretation, and that's ok as long as we recognize that. The Word speaks anew to every generation through the Scriptures, yet we have to be careful about contextualizing too much of the text to our current worldview, I think. Or we'll miss the underlying meanings and lose the ancient character of the text.

Sorry, I get excited about this soap box:) Stepping down now...

On Sep 14, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

I guess I never thought of it like that.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140227420.

[reibwo]

I actually have to agree with you both here. The heavens are currently still being stretched out. The universe is truly expanding. The expansion is accelerating. At least that is what all the best science is currently telling us. I think it is both poetic and scientific to think of this space around the earth being stretched out infinitely beyond our planet, solar system, galaxy and into the far “corners” of the universe. If this is not the literal hand of God—it is a work wrought by His hands. The two concepts flow easily into one another.

So, I vote for 'space not ‘heaven. Also, if you use ‘space in these instances, you avoid a more important confusion with the idea of ‘heaven as opposed to ‘the heavens’.

On 15 Sep 2015, at 8:50 am, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

I guess I never thought of it like that.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140227420.

[vonlein]

That's an interesting take. Though I think I would use something more like "universe" instead of "space" if I was going to try to communicate that meaning in poetry. I'm not a scientist, but I think of space being the fairly static context in which things are expanding, and the universe is the enlivened object which is expanding.

Of course, there's still the decision about how far away to go from the original understanding — do you try to bring it forward into today's science, or allow the ancient authors to speak with their own voice and understanding about God? Both are valid, but seem to be bigger decisions about the entire tone of the translation. Are there guidelines for this translation that emphasize one trajectory or another? I started following this casually quite a while ago, and I don't know much about it beyond this notification suddenly showing up (hopefully I'm not out of line in replying out of interest).

After all, I imagine there's a lot of poetry written in the last hundred years that speaks to deep truth beyond scientific fact which now could be "updated" to conform to modern scientific theory, but wouldn't that editing that detract from the beauty and context of the original writing?

On Sep 14, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Kai notifications@github.com wrote:

I actually have to agree with you both here. The heavens are currently still being stretched out. The universe is truly expanding. The expansion is accelerating. At least that is what all the best science is currently telling us. I think it is both poetic and scientific to think of this space around the earth being stretched out infinitely beyond our planet, solar system, galaxy and into the far “corners” of the universe. If this is not the literal hand of God—it is a work wrought by His hands. The two concepts flow easily into one another.

So, I vote for 'space not ‘heaven. Also, if you use ‘space in these instances, you avoid a more important confusion with the idea of ‘heaven as opposed to ‘the heavens’.

On 15 Sep 2015, at 8:50 am, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

I guess I never thought of it like that.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140227420.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140230175.

[zachdyer]

Right now space is pretty much the missing piece in science right now because most people think of space as nothing however it is something and science could reveal some key truths backed up by key verses in the Bible and possibly lead to the Bible becoming more relative to the world. For example take a look at this:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

• Paul the Apostle

Now we now things are made of invisible things and that lead to quantum physics. Once we discovered quantum physics we now know that our reality of what we perceive to be real is in question and no one really understands it because it works different than the laws that we are used to working in. All this points to the fact that things can and are hidden from our view.

One more thing about space that you can test right now or look at a photograph. If you take a picture of a drop of water with a high speed camera it turns to a globe or a sphere. Also if you zoom out a look at planets and stars they have the same behavior and "globe up". Maybe this has something to do with how space works with the water drop and the larger bodies.

[vonlein]

Well, Jewish tradition holds that every verse in the Tanakh has 70 valid interpretations, so maybe so. :)

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Seventy_Faces/seventy_faces.html http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Seventy_Faces/seventy_faces.html

Personally I would just be cautious about going beyond the text, when poetry in the 8th century BCE would most likely have been thinking of "heavens" as what we think of as "sky", and/or being God's literal dwelling place as "Heaven" depending on context. In this context, "sky" is probably what I would choose for this particular verse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_in_Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_in_Judaism

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/035.html http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/035.html

" •shemayim: heaven, sky, visible heavens, heaven as realm of the stars.

Although shemayim is a plural form, its meaning here is singular (like “mathematics” in English)—as reflected in the Greek translation known as the Septuagint, which uses the singular form oura­non. For Tyndale in his time and place to translate shemayim as “heaven” was entirely appro­priate, but that is no longer the case. In 1530 shemayim meant the visible dome of the sky in which the sun was embedded. That dome rotated around the earth carrying the sun by day and the moon and stars by night. For us, however, “heaven” often means “cosmos” or “astronomical uni­verse.” Since neither the author of Genesis nor any other human being up to Tyndale’s time (in­cluding Tyndale himself) was aware of what we mean by “universe” it would seem prudent to select another word, from the list above or elsewhere. We propose “sky,” since that is surely closer to what the ancient Hebrews—those who first listened to the Genesis account—pictured mentally.

Therefore: shemayim = sky (not universe).

"

On Sep 14, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Right now space is pretty much the missing piece in science right now because most people think of space as nothing however it is something and science could reveal some key truths backed up by key verses in the Bible and possibly lead to the Bible becoming more relative to the world. For example take a look at this:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Paul the Apostle Now we now things are made of invisible things and that lead to quantum physics. Once we discovered quantum physics we now know that our reality of what we perceive to be real is in question and no one really understands it because it works different than the laws that we are used to working in. All this goes does point to the fact that things can and are hidden from our view.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140232501.

[vonlein]

Here's one more reference from a site I've learned from in the past:

http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/genesis-11/ http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/genesis-11/

On Sep 14, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Right now space is pretty much the missing piece in science right now because most people think of space as nothing however it is something and science could reveal some key truths backed up by key verses in the Bible and possibly lead to the Bible becoming more relative to the world. For example take a look at this:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Paul the Apostle Now we now things are made of invisible things and that lead to quantum physics. Once we discovered quantum physics we now know that our reality of what we perceive to be real is in question and no one really understands it because it works different than the laws that we are used to working in. All this goes does point to the fact that things can and are hidden from our view.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140232501.

[openenglishbible]

What a great discussion! I haven’t come across any translations which use ‘space’, which means I would be reluctant to use it for the OEB without good reason, because of the general policy of not going beyond the, um, space laid out by the mainstream translations. Think of it as a discipline of humility :) (Of course I’d be really interested in an adaptive translation of the creation poem in Genesis for other contexts!) On the other hand, generally the OEB isn’t too fussed about being a concordant translation where that concordancy gets in the way of communicating the text at hand. Other translations have both ‘sky’ and ‘heavens’, depending on whether they are communicating a spiritual or physical reference, of example. Its problematic of course, because the original writers would not have had that distinction - at least in that way. But everything about this is problematic :) Choose ‘heavens’ and modern readers often think of Miltonian angels plucking harps while battling demons, when all the text is talking about is rain clouds. Choose ‘sky’ and people might start thinking that God physically lives in geostationary orbit somewhere! Russell

On 15 Sep 2015, at 9:49 am, John Lein notifications@github.com wrote:

Here's one more reference from a site I've learned from in the past:

http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/genesis-11/ http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/genesis-11/

On Sep 14, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Right now space is pretty much the missing piece in science right now because most people think of space as nothing however it is something and science could reveal some key truths backed up by key verses in the Bible and possibly lead to the Bible becoming more relative to the world. For example take a look at this:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Paul the Apostle Now we now things are made of invisible things and that lead to quantum physics. Once we discovered quantum physics we now know that our reality of what we perceive to be real is in question and no one really understands it because it works different than the laws that we are used to working in. All this goes does point to the fact that things can and are hidden from our view.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140232501.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140235065.

[Coburn]

I agree with John that we don't want to superimpose a modern vocabulary (and a modern understanding of things) on Scripture.

I would just say that we don't want to use a medieval European understanding, either. The ideas that Galileo overturned may not have been any more Hebraic than our ideas. I do know that they were a combination of classical Greek theories and scholasticism. But the Bible predates the Greeks by a thousand years or two, and it is from a different cultural origin.

I like the accidental use of the word "sky." It is a basic word, like the Hebrew /shamayim/. It is a feet-on-the-ground, naked-eye word. It doesn't presume any time-bound and culture-bound cosmological explanations, nor suggest them.

One thing we want to do is to not eliminate any possible interpretations that are true and important. We want to let the text be as ambiguous as it wants to be. In the case of this example, we don't want to attribute a scientifically false concept to the Bible authors. Better to use a layman's word like "sky" than to say that they had a scientific concept of the heavens that was incorrect. We don't want to introduce new information into the text, for clarification, when there isn't really ground for introducing it.

Thanks

Coby

On 09/14/2015 03:46 PM, John Lein wrote:

Hm. I guess I would be reading this as poetry which uses metaphorical language to speak of the author's experience of and understanding of God, not a scientific text being dictated from above.

It just doesn't make sense to speak of space between stretched out like a curtain in a literal sense. Right? But if you thought the universe was a dome above your head, it would make sense to speak of God stretching out the sky like a canvas on a frame—a very beautiful and meaningful metaphorical picture of the power and majesty of the Divine.

On Sep 14, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Okay but space is being stretched and we don't know what is stretching it unless we assume it is God just as this verse seems to be saying to us.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140224097.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140226851.

[zachdyer]

Check this verse our from the ISV. This seems to make more sense.

"In the beginning, God created the universe."

[vonlein]

But that's not what the Hebrew directly translates to. It's actually two different words: "the heavens and the earth" are likely a merism, a form of speech that uses two opposites to include everything in between, just like "alpha and omega". You are likely even safer using a literal translation of "the sky and the earth", but I'm still personally fond of the "heavens" language for sentimental reasons plus it leaves open a implication of the spiritual aspect of the world.

You may understand it to mean "the universe" when you read it, which is fine. But someone else could take the phrase to be inclusive of both spiritual and physical realms. Or a literal description of the actual sky and land. Or all of those at once. By translating it into a word foreign to the text, you take away the ability of the reader to see those other meanings as the Spirit speaks to them. And for me, it reduces the original beauty of the phrase.

The word "universe" is rooted in Greek philosophy, a Western worldview, where "heavens and earth" come out of the more Eastern perspective (very different) from the Hebrew culture. I agree with Coby that what Galileo and Copernicus overturned was the 2nd century Ptolemaic theory, not the Hebraic understanding—which was more ancient still and decidedly not intended to come from modern-style scientific investigation. What both shared of course was the idea of the earth as being the center of the universe, which we now know is not true—but that understanding is assumed in many texts in the Bible because it was how they could understand what was being said. That's why it took over 100 years for the science to be accepted, because it was seen as directly contradicting Scripture.

My concern is, what do you mean by "make more sense?" Are you looking for it to make sense in a modern scientific sense, which is objectively completely foreign to the original scribe and audience? Or in a theological sense, contributing to understanding how God, humanity and creation relate to each other, partially by allowing us to understand how God spoke into the ancient cultures of the time in contrast to the origin myths of the surrounding nations? Different people may answer this in different ways.

Any time you decide to move away from the plain literal meaning of a word in translation, you're making decisions for the reader that may be misleading.

On Sep 15, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Check this verse our from the ISV. This seems to make more sense.

"In the beginning, God created the universe."

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140530205.

[versine]

With regards to the concept of space being stretched, that would be a completely accurate description of reality, so no false information would be introduced. Being that my training is in physics, that's as much input as I can reasonably add to this discussion. Keep up the good work, I think this is an awesome project.

[Coburn]

I find a strong commonality between reading the Bible in Hebrew and my day job as a Spanish interpreter. I talk every day with peasants. People you could plunk down in the world of the Bible, and except for the language barrier, they would get along fine.

Language is worldview. I like to try to translate with the same kind of words as the author, and with the same diction and rhythm of speech. There is a musicality to peasant talk. Not saying Moses and Solomon were peasants. Obviously. But reading the Bible in Hebrew, you get a little bit of the same

So, with the whole "heavens" vs. "outer space" thing, I get a little bit of a feeling like we are spinning our wheels. It is good to avoid extremes, anachronisms, and awkward word choices. But at some point, don't we just want to make the simple and obvious choice?

Though I do have a question. If the OEB ends up using skies or space or what have you, what will be the translation choice for the idiom heavens of the heavens, in verses like De 10.14, 1K 8.27, and Ps 115.16? The plain reference is outer space as opposed to the sky. But we have to use a simpler word, to avoid implying that the Bible authors knew things they did not.

John makes a good point, that the heavens and the earth is actually a merism, whatever that is. Bookends on the creation, sounds like. So we have to think about "the whole counsel of Scripture," and what other authors thought of this statement. I am reminded of Peter, where he says, "We understand that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth that then was, was formed out of water and by water." In other words, what we have come to know as the universe is ancient, and life on earth is a recent creation.

In order to leave room for interpretations like that, it is very important not to conflate two words into one. That is bad translation. It is considered unethical in my profession. I don't care what kind of Bible you are making, the Message, the ISV, whatever. There is no excuse for it.

Thanks,

Coby

On 09/15/2015 03:03 PM, John Lein wrote:

But that's not what the Hebrew directly translates to. It's actually two different words: "the heavens and the earth" are likely a merism, a form of speech that uses two opposites to include everything in between, just like "alpha and omega". You are likely even safer using a literal translation of "the sky and the earth", but I'm still personally fond of the "heavens" language for sentimental reasons plus it leaves open a implication of the spiritual aspect of the world.

You may understand it to mean "the universe" when you read it, which is fine. But someone else could take the phrase to be inclusive of both spiritual and physical realms. Or a literal description of the actual sky and land. Or all of those at once. By translating it into a word foreign to the text, you take away the ability of the reader to see those other meanings as the Spirit speaks to them. And for me, it reduces the original beauty of the phrase.

The word "universe" is rooted in Greek philosophy, a Western worldview, where "heavens and earth" come out of the more Eastern perspective (very different) from the Hebrew culture. I agree with Coby that what Galileo and Copernicus overturned was the 2nd century Ptolemaic theory, not the Hebraic understanding—which was more ancient still and decidedly not intended to come from modern-style scientific investigation. What both shared of course was the idea of the earth as being the center of the universe, which we now know is not true—but that understanding is assumed in many texts in the Bible because it was how they could understand what was being said. That's why it took over 100 years for the science to be accepted, because it was seen as directly contradicting Scripture.

My concern is, what do you mean by "make more sense?" Are you looking for it to make sense in a modern scientific sense, which is objectively completely foreign to the original scribe and audience? Or in a theological sense, contributing to understanding how God, humanity and creation relate to each other, partially by allowing us to understand how God spoke into the ancient cultures of the time in contrast to the origin myths of the surrounding nations? Different people may answer this in different ways.

Any time you decide to move away from the plain literal meaning of a word in translation, you're making decisions for the reader that may be misleading.

On Sep 15, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Zach Dyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Check this verse our from the ISV. This seems to make more sense.

"In the beginning, God created the universe."

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140530205.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openenglishbible/Open-English-Bible/issues/310#issuecomment-140559580.