Biblical cosmology

[Mallon]

For those interested in why evolutionary creationists don't read their Bible as a science textbook, here are two excellent articles by Brian Godawa that explain:

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible, Part 3 | The BioLogos Forum

He makes an interesting point that modern "scientific creationism" doesn't align with the original professions of Christian fundamentalism, too (see the first link).

More here: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf

 

[Greg1234]

For those interested in why evolutionary creationists don't read their Bible as a science textbook, here are two excellent articles by Brian Godawa that explain:

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible, Part 3 | The BioLogos Forum

He makes an interesting point that modern "scientific creationism" doesn't align with the original professions of Christian fundamentalism, too (see the first link).

More here: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf

Creationism already acknowledges evolution and this is redundant. Also, a special creation of man by God without descending from microbes through random mutation, by a process where man was not directly created by god through having descended from microbes, is a contradiction in terms. You guys should spend less time playing word games and reaching for inherently flawed cosmological lifelines and make an attempt to look for the data being requested.

 

[Mallon]

Creationism already acknowledges evolution and this is redundant. Also, a special creation of man by God without descending from microbes through random mutation, by a process where man was not directly created by god through having descended from microbes, is a contradiction in terms. You guys should spend less time playing word games and reaching for inherently flawed cosmological lifelines and make an attempt to look for the data being requested.

I fail to see how any of this relates to my original post.

What do you think about the articles, Greg?

 

[Greg1234]

I fail to see how any of this relates to my original post.

I fail to see how any of this relates to evidence for Darwinism.

What do you think about the articles, Greg?

More non-data.

 

[Mallon]

I fail to see how any of this relates to evidence for Darwinism.

Who said it had anything to do with "Darwinism". The articles deal with biblical hermeneutics and cosmology, not evolution.

Please let me know what you think when you've actually read them.

 

[Greg1234]

Who said it had anything to do with "Darwinism".

Glad we cleared that up.

The articles deal with biblical hermeneutics and cosmology, not evolution. Please let me know what you think when you've actually read them.

Already have. Same old same old. Psalm 148 says the sun doesn't move and explains the statutes, so there's nothing there. The article makes an attempt to lean heavily on the literal sense while creationism is found among individuals who do a literal and figurative interpretation (and evidence-based) so there's nothing there either. Even if there was no creation mentioned the laws laid out which 1 Cor 15:39 touches upon already imply creation. Hence you just have to provide data for your case. I find no point in chasing you and yours around in these bible debasement sessions.

 

[Assyrian]

Is that the sun that doesn't move in Psalm 148 or the sun and the moon? How does that work?

 

[Mallon]

Glad we cleared that up.
Already have. Same old same old. Psalm 148 says the sun doesn't move and explains the statutes, so there's nothing there.

If you interpret Psalm 148 to mean that the sun doesn't move, do you also interpret it to mean that the moon doesn't move? And why would you interpret this passage literally but not any of the other passages that say the sun does move and the earth does not? I think the articles I cited do a pretty good job of establishing that the Bible teaches the latter, particularly in light of Mesopotamian cosmology.

I find no point in chasing you and yours around in these bible debasement sessions.

I'm not looking to debase the Bible. I'm looking to understand it as it was written. There's no harm in that. Let's keep talking.

 

[Greg1234]

If you interpret Psalm 148

Yep. If Genesis is also interpreted explain to me how your argument justifies your position..

to mean that the sun doesn't move,

I already explained alluded to the statutes. This isn't relevant.

I'm not looking to debase the Bible. I'm looking to understand it as it was written. There's no harm in that. Let's keep talking.

You're attempting to fit it into a Darwinian framework.

 

[Assyrian]

So in post 6 when you said "there's nothing there", you meant there's nothing in your response?

 

[Mallon]

Yep. If Genesis is also interpreted explain to me how your argument justifies your position..

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Please elaborate.

I already explained alluded to the statutes. This isn't relevant.

Please explain further. I don't know what you mean. The Bible says very clearly on many occasions that the sun moves and that the earth does not, which is in agreement with the cosmology of many other near eastern cultures and religions. Why, specifically, do you believe that Psalm 148 teaches that the sun does not move, but reject the teachings of Psalm 19:4-6, 50:1, and 93:1, which clearly state that the sun does move, and the earth does not? Let's examine your hermeneutic.

You're attempting to fit it into a Darwinian framework.

I haven't said anything about Darwin. We're talking about the Bible, not evolution. Please stop trying to change the subject.

 

[Greg1234]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Please elaborate.

Genesis is taken figuratively and interpreted. Through the interpretation we find differently that man was created as man. Now, your articles attack creationism how?

 

[Mallon]

Genesis is taken figuratively and interpreted. Through the interpretation we find differently that man was created as man. Now, your articles attack creationism how?

The point of the articles is that the Bible does not accurately describe what we now know from science to be true about our planet. Rather, it reflects the assumptions of other ancient near eastern cultures that the world is flat and stationary, and that it is covered by a solid dome that separates the waters below the earth from those above. Given this, we should be wary about trying to interpret the Genesis creation accounts in a scientific light.

That's the point of the articles.

Now I would love it if you could please answer my question about why you believe that Psalm 148 teaches that the sun is stationary, in contradiction to the other Bible verses I cited. Is your hemeneutic consistent? Does it make more sense of the Bible's cosmology than the articles I provided?

 

[philadiddle]

Greg I have a simple question for you.

Does any part of the bible contain imagery of an ancient cosmology?

I expect you may try to side step the question but somewhere in your answer please just say "yes" or "no" and then elaborate further.

 

[Greg1234]

The point of the articles is that the Bible does not accurately describe what we now know from science to be true about our planet.

And as just explained, here Genesis is interpreted. Your articles do not attack interpretations but make an attempt to interpret. So how does it attack creationism?

 

[Greg1234]

Greg I have a simple question for you.

Does any part of the bible contain imagery of an ancient cosmology?

I expect you may try to side step the question but somewhere in your answer please just say "yes" or "no" and then elaborate further.

Another time, chief.

 

[philadiddle]

Another time, chief.

But this is the topic, "Biblical cosmology". So do you think that any part of the bible contains imagery of an ancient cosmology?

 

[Mallon]

And as just explained, here Genesis is interpreted. Your articles do not attack interpretations but make an attempt to interpret. So how does it attack creationism?

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, Greg.

 

[Greg1234]

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, Greg.

Why do you think that your articles attack creationism?

 

[Mallon]

Why do you think that your articles attack creationism?

Where did I ever say that it did? I think the articles undermine the case for YECism, but it doesn't "attack" YECism.