> Water. Sky blue? There must be water above it. Why it doesn't fall? God keeps it up.
Is there a variation on "straw man" that's more like "shadow boxing", where someone grossly misunderstands what someone's saying and then argues against their own misunderstanding?
I've never heard any reference to the sky being blue because there's water there. People 4000 years ago weren't stupid. Everyone knows rain comes from clouds, not from a blue sky. If you read one sentence in isolation and it seems stupid or perverse, you should first check to see if you're understanding it correctly, before writing it off, particularly if it's from a different language, culture, or time.
My interpretation of this I've given above already: The "waters above" were the clouds. This makes sense of the paradox that the creation story describes light as being created before the sun. Everyone knows that light comes from the sun; so why would anyone make up a story where day and night happen for three days before the sun shows up?
But suppose instead, what was described was from an observer on a particular point above the earth's surface:
1. Sun ignites; you can see light in general but you can't see the sun because all you can see is fog on a water.
2. The "fog" lifts above the water and become clouds, so now there's visible space between the water and the clouds, but you still can't see the sun.
3. The clouds part, and now you can see the sun, moon, and stars.
> Is there a variation on "straw man" that's more like "shadow boxing", where someone grossly misunderstands what someone's saying and then argues against their own misunderstanding?
Are you accusing me of strawmaning great wisdom of people that didn't have a single measurement device they could apply to what's above their heads?
I read in less then 2000 year old writings of a philosopher that everybody knows that though diamonds are hard, they can be split with goats blood. Should I think deeply about it and come up with charitable interpretation because people back then weren't stupid? Lack of data makes regularly smart people create weird beliefs.
> I've never heard any reference to the sky being blue because there's water there
'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'
Firmament is the thing that stars lie onto. So definitely there's saying about waters (not some special waters like clouds but plain usual waters just the same as the ones below the firmament).
Association with sky color blue is my own specific idea about why would anyone in their right mind speak about waters above in exactly the same way as terrestrial waters. I'd even call this interpretation of mine, charitable.
> People 4000 years ago weren't stupid. Everyone knows rain comes from clouds, not from a blue sky.
Ah, but where the clouds come from? Was it also that obvious that they don't come from blue sky?
> My interpretation
...
> The "waters above" were the clouds.
Are clouds mentioned any more than color blue?
Other than that, wonderful interpretation of something that didn't happen and even if it did it couldn't be observed, because on day 4 the only living things were plants.
Is there a variation on "straw man" that's more like "shadow boxing", where someone grossly misunderstands what someone's saying and then argues against their own misunderstanding?
I've never heard any reference to the sky being blue because there's water there. People 4000 years ago weren't stupid. Everyone knows rain comes from clouds, not from a blue sky. If you read one sentence in isolation and it seems stupid or perverse, you should first check to see if you're understanding it correctly, before writing it off, particularly if it's from a different language, culture, or time.
My interpretation of this I've given above already: The "waters above" were the clouds. This makes sense of the paradox that the creation story describes light as being created before the sun. Everyone knows that light comes from the sun; so why would anyone make up a story where day and night happen for three days before the sun shows up?
But suppose instead, what was described was from an observer on a particular point above the earth's surface:
1. Sun ignites; you can see light in general but you can't see the sun because all you can see is fog on a water.
2. The "fog" lifts above the water and become clouds, so now there's visible space between the water and the clouds, but you still can't see the sun.
3. The clouds part, and now you can see the sun, moon, and stars.