Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:31:18 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/06/2025 16:46, Paul S Person wrote:

<snippo a lot more>
<reference is to Ps 104 online>

But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial
corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
 
Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.

>
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.

It is nonetheless my interpretation of what I read. Feel free to have
your own.

Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world.  And history.  :-)

Which might explain why I am linking it to Gen 1.

And I believe I already mentioned the relation to /enuma elish/ and
other myths.

And cited a mythographer, Robert Graves. If you want to talk about
myths, doesn't it make sense to research people who /study/ them? Or
is dismissing them enough for you?

The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away.  While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded."  Maybe that's the same
event.  In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem.  Water
doesn't compress.  Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.

I can see why you are thinking of the Flood.

But the "Spirit" who hovers over the waters in Gen 1 can also be
translated (per an RSV note) as the "wind". In the NT, "God-inspired"
is literally God-breathed ("theopneumatos"). So "God breathed on the
earth", "God caused a wind to blow over the earth", and "God sent his
Spirit over the earth" could all express the same idea.

Translation is /not/ word-substitution. It never has been.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"