Biblical cosmology

[Greg1234]

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

Word games now. Why do you think the article undermines (but not in any way attacks) creationism?

 

[Mallon]

Word games now. Why do you think the article undermines (but not in any way attacks) creationism?

I already answered that back in post 13.

 

[Greg1234]

I already answered that back in post 13.

Why do you think post 13 undermines (but not in anyway attacks) creationism?

 

[Mallon]

Why do you think post 13 undermines (but not in anyway attacks) creationism?

Because it completely does away with the concordist hermeneutic on which neocreationism is based. If you knew that the Bible assumed an ancient cosmology, would you be quick to look for scientific insight in it?

 

[Greg1234]

Because it completely does away with the concordist hermeneutic on which neocreationism is based. If you knew that the Bible assumed an ancient cosmology, would you be quick to look for scientific insight in it?

As just given, here creationism is an interpretation of texts. How does an article which undermines (but not in any way attacks) concordist hermeneutic view justify your position?

 

[Mallon]

As just given, here creationism is an interpretation of texts. How does an article which undermines (but not in any way attacks) concordist hermeneutic view justify your position?

Because it means that we can gauge the accuracy of our science with reference to God's creation -- the way science was meant to be done -- rather than with reference to proof texts.

 

[Greg1234]

Because it means that we can gauge the accuracy of our science with reference to God's creation -- the way science was meant to be done -- rather than with reference to proof texts.

And we're back to square one. See post two.

 

[mark kennedy]

You can't win Greg, once he starts in circles he can go for days and never get dizzy.

 

[Mallon]

You can't win Greg, once he starts in circles he can go for days and never get dizzy.

So much for living up to your promise to be more civil.

How is my logic circular? Please explain because I'm having a hard time understanding Greg (this goes for anyone).

 

[mark kennedy]

So much for living up to your promise to be more civil.

How is my logic circular? Please explain.

Ok the conversation is all over the road so let's take it one soundbite at a time. I think it's genuinely decent for someone to want to be more civil in these debates, that's about all that's going on in the other discussion.

Also, before I get to the circular argument you and Greg are chasing around the mulberry bush I did want to share something from the article:

The implications of this principle forced me to re-evaluate my own understanding of just what the Bible is saying when it comes to science and cosmography. Because of my modern western scientific bias, I could easily misinterpret something as literal that was intended to be figurative, such as stars falling from the sky and the sun and moon losing their light (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Matt. 24:29)(cited and linked in the OP)​

What is being taken here is a couple of verses that seem to indicate that the earth is stationary and the sun moves. The verses in question have absolutely nothing to do with cosmology but ok, the passages do seem to reflect a geocentric cosmology. From that we are supposed to get this hermeneutic that the prophetic prediction of catastrophic judgment during the tribulation just prior to the return of Christ is 'intended' to be taken figuratively. This is just plain bad Bible exposition.

When Greg starts complaining about Darwinism what is really at issue is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. The terms used in these discussions have been so equivocated that the are nearly synonymous. What he is talking about is naturalistic assumptions and the rationalization of miracles in the Bible. I think you realize this Mallon and believe me when I tell you I bear you no malice for your rhetoric, I just think you are asking pedantic questions in circles.

Now there is a civil solution here, stop pretending you don't know what Greg means. What is more if you want to discuss the article I have no problem with it but lets be realistic here. You can't equivocate the figurative language of a Psalm that is clearly comparing the sun to the something else and an explicit prophetic prediction of a cataclysm clearly intended to be literal.

That's what I mean by circular, no matter what he says you just reword the question again as if the explanation is unsatisfactory. I can help you with Biblical cosmology Mallon, there is no such thing. The few Biblical passages that mention celestial objects obviously describe then from a terrestrial point of view, especially in Genesis 1. That's a literary feature reflecting how things looked to them in the ancient world, even to astronomers. In the apocalyptic literature and when Jesus is elaborating on the signs of His coming there is no indication that he is speaking figuratively.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Ok the conversation is all over the road so let's take it one soundbite at a time. I think it's genuinely decent for someone to want to be more civil in these debates, that's about all that's going on in the other discussion.

Also, before I get to the circular argument you and Greg are chasing around the mulberry bush I did want to share something from the article:

The implications of this principle forced me to re-evaluate my own understanding of just what the Bible is saying when it comes to science and cosmography. Because of my modern western scientific bias, I could easily misinterpret something as literal that was intended to be figurative, such as stars falling from the sky and the sun and moon losing their light (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Matt. 24:29)(cited and linked in the OP)​

What is being taken here is a couple of verses that seem to indicate that the earth is stationary and the sun moves. The verses in question have absolutely nothing to do with cosmology but ok, the passages do seem to reflect a geocentric cosmology. From that we are supposed to get this hermeneutic that the prophetic prediction of catastrophic judgment during the tribulation just prior to the return of Christ is 'intended' to be taken figuratively. This is just plain bad Bible exposition.

When Greg starts complaining about Darwinism what is really at issue is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. The terms used in these discussions have been so equivocated that the are nearly synonymous. What he is talking about is naturalistic assumptions and the rationalization of miracles in the Bible. I think you realize this Mallon and believe me when I tell you I bear you no malice for your rhetoric, I just think you are asking pedantic questions in circles.

Now there is a civil solution here, stop pretending you don't know what Greg means. What is more if you want to discuss the article I have no problem with it but lets be realistic here. You can't equivocate the figurative language of a Psalm that is clearly comparing the sun to the something else and an explicit prophetic prediction of a cataclysm clearly intended to be literal.

That's what I mean by circular, no matter what he says you just reword the question again as if the explanation is unsatisfactory. I can help you with Biblical cosmology Mallon, there is no such thing. The few Biblical passages that mention celestial objects obviously describe then from a terrestrial point of view, especially in Genesis 1. That's a literary feature reflecting how things looked to them in the ancient world, even to astronomers. So what?

Have a nice day
Mark

Thanks, mark. I'm not pretending that I don't understand Greg. I genuinely don't. I find his thoughts very disjointed.

So at the end of the day, you're admitting that God accommodated His message to the limited understanding and perspective of the Hebrew people in order to get it across to them. The Hebrews spoke of a stationary earth because that's how they perceived it (not God). The Hebrews spoke of a flat earth because that's how they perceived it (not God). The Hebrews spoke of a moving sun because that's how they perceived it (not God). They also spoke using other motifs common to the cultural milieu in which they were situated (creation of the earth from chaotic waters, creation ex nihilo, epic flood story, solid firmament, etc.). Given this, the question is: Why would we seek scientific insight from the pages of Genesis when the Bible clearly reflects the ancient science of the Hebrews which God accommodated His message to in order to be understood?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks, mark. I'm not pretending that I don't understand Greg. I genuinely don't. I find his thoughts very disjointed.

He is talking about naturalistic assumptions but I won't pretend to represent his views it just seems obvious to me.

So at the end of the day, you're admitting that God accommodated His message to the limited understanding and perspective of the Hebrew people in order to get it across to them. The Hebrews spoke of a stationary earth because that's how they perceived it (not God). The Hebrews spoke of a flat earth because that's how they perceived it (not God). The Hebrews spoke of a moving sun because that's how they perceived it (not God).

Hold on, your stretching the meaning here, there is no accommodation here. They often spoke of the sun and moon and stars, sometimes they reflected a geocentric cosmology but it wasn't something they had in mind and certainly God was not revealing the celestial mechanics of the course of the sun. You just keep inserting 'not God' parenthetically as if there were a larger point to be made here. Let's see where you go with this.

They also spoke using other motifs common to the cultural milieu in which they were situated (creation of the earth from chaotic waters, creation ex nihilo, epic flood story, solid firmament, etc.). Given this, the question is: Why would we seek scientific insight from the pages of Genesis when the Bible clearly reflects the ancient science of the Hebrews which God accommodated His message to in order to be understood?

Creation ex nihilo is not a dispensable Christian doctrine, it's what is obviously intended in the original Hebrew. I won't bother going into a detailed exposition of 'bara', you have seen it before, it means creation from nothing. The Flood is confirmed as historical by Peter in the New Testament and even Jesus spoke of it as an actual event in the same way he spoke of the 'coming of the Son of Man'. Sooner or later you are going to have to come to terms with this.

There is no such thing as an ancient science involved with the Genesis narrative. Your having a real problem discerning between the literal and figurative in the Bible.

Cosmology is not a Biblical topic, the writers never elaborate on how the heavens work. What is clear are the historical and prophetic references and the Flood of Noah and the 'stars falling from the sky' are clearly literal. You are not comparing apples to apples, it's called equivocation and it makes for poor Biblical expositions.

I'm not trying to be derogatory here, there are clear references to literal history and events. Some of the references are past and some are future. You don't get to dismiss these events because it is inconsistent with naturalistic assumptions. I think that was the point Greg was getting at but my guess is he will pop in at some point to clarify his point if he is still interested in the topic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Hold on, your stretching the meaning here, there is no accommodation here. They often spoke of the sun and moon and stars, sometimes they reflected a geocentric cosmology but it wasn't something they had in mind and certainly God was not revealing the celestial mechanics of the course of the sun.

But that's the definition of accommodation! God, not being interested in overwriting the geocentric perspective of the Hebrews (because that was not His intention), used their limited and fallible perspective to deliver His message.

Creation ex nihilo is not a dispensable Christian doctrine, it's what is obviously intended in the original Hebrew.

It's also obvious from the original Hebrew that a flat, stationary earth and a sun that moves along a solid firmament was intended. So what? God used these common ANE motifs to deliver His message.

The Flood is confirmed as historical by Peter in the New Testament and even Jesus spoke of it as an actual event in the same way he spoke of the 'coming of the Son of Man'.

Or God also accommodated His message to yet another common ANE theme. Simply citing the story of Noah to make a point doesn't make that story accurate in its every detail any more than citing the common ANE motif of a flat earth to make a point (e.g., Job 38:14) makes that an accurate statement about the shape of the earth.

There is no such thing as an ancient science involved with the Genesis narrative. Your having a real problem discerning between the literal and figurative in the Bible.

This has nothing to do with literal vs. figurative. This has to do with accommodation and concordism. The whole point of this thread is that the concordist hermeneutic is bankrupt, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bible quite obviously assumes an ancient cosmology.

Cosmology is not a Biblical topic, the writers never elaborate on how the heavens work. What is clear are the historical and prophetic references and the Flood of Noah and the 'stars falling from the sky' are clearly literal. You are not comparing apples to apples, it's called equivocation and it makes for poor Biblical expositions.

Your talk of stars falling from the sky only further demonstrates my point about God accommodating His message to the ancient science of the Hebrew people. The Hebrews clearly believed that stars were just pinpricks of light set in the firmament, and that they could fall to earth (Isa 14:12, Dan 8:10, Mat 24:29, Mar 13:25, Rev 6:13, 12:4) as the firmament rolled up like a scroll (Rev 6:14). Contrast this with what we now know -- stars are giant balls of flaming gas light years away from the earth that most certainly could not fall to its surface.

Thanks, mark, but you haven't in any way cast doubt on the fact that God accommodated His message to the ancient perspectives and motifs of the ANE people.

 

[granpa]

very ancient preflood people had a detailed and accurate understanding of many things including cosmology
but somewhere along the line (maybe at babel) this knowledge was lost or became confused.
after that only the well educated priests still knew these things.

 

[mark kennedy]

very ancient people had a detailed and accurate understanding of cosmology but somewhere along the line (maybe at babel) this knowledge was lost.
Even after that the well educated priests probably still knew all about cosmology.
It just wasnt common knowledge.

I happened upon a small booklet published by NASA if memory serves, I think it was focused on the Hubble Space Telescope. At any rate it was talking about Astronomy and in the discussion it said that Astronomy was the oldest science in the world. It described how the ancient Egyptians had detailed star charts which makes sense, the stars are the basis for calendars.

Cosmology on the other hand is far less important, when you think about it Cosmology isn't producing anything important even though it is a fun and interesting study. Ancient cosmology seems pithy and highly general because all they really knew about the heavens was how they looked from earth from the naked eye.

Knowledge of the heavens has not been lost, it's just changed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Double posted for some reason, this one can be disregarded.

 

[mark kennedy]

But that's the definition of accommodation! God, not being interested in overwriting the geocentric perspective of the Hebrews (because that was not His intention), used their limited and fallible perspective to deliver His message.

The Old Testament has no Astronomy, Cosmology or Euclidean geometry and that tells us nothing about the intent of God or the writers of Scripture. Nothing is being accommodated here, ancient clerics, including astronomers described the heavens and they saw them, so what?

In the fourth day's work, the creation of the sun, moon, and stars is accounted for. All these are the works of God. The stars are spoken of as they appear to our eyes, without telling their number, nature, place, size, or motions; for the Scriptures were written, not to gratify curiosity, or make us astronomers, but to lead us to God, and make us saints. (Matthew Henry)


"The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Pope John Paul II, quoting Galileo Galilei)

Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens? dost thou determine their rule over the earth? (Job 38:33)​

It's also obvious from the original Hebrew that a flat, stationary earth and a sun that moves along a solid firmament was intended. So what? God used these common ANE motifs to deliver His message.

Have you noticed, no one is arguing with this?

Or God also accommodated His message to yet another common ANE theme. Simply citing the story of Noah to make a point doesn't make that story accurate in its every detail any more than citing the common ANE motif of a flat earth to make a point (e.g., Job 38:14) makes that an accurate statement about the shape of the earth.

While that makes perfect sense and is a reasonable inference for Job, Job's cosmology is not discussed in the New Testament. The Deluge is and both Peter and Jesus describe it as an historical event. When Jesus discussed the Deluge it used it as an example of a future event that your reference material has wrongly described as 'obviously figurative'.

This has nothing to do with literal vs. figurative. This has to do with accommodation with concordism. The whole point of this thread is that the concordist hermeneutic is bankrupt, as demonstrated by the fact that the Bible quite obviously assumes an ancient cosmology.

When are you going to start dealing with real issues and stop equivocating cosmology with sound hermeneutics? You are throwing a lot of semantic verbiage around in an attempt to avoid the central question here, specifically, how you discern a literal history from a figure of speech. Nothing regarding ancient cosmology has any bearing on sound hermeneutics. References to the movement of celestial bodies are mentioned in passing in Scripture, again, so what?

Your talk of stars falling from the sky only further demonstrates my point about God accommodating His message to the ancient science of the Hebrew people. The Hebrews clearly believed that stars were just pinpricks of light set in the firmament, and that they could fall to earth (Isa 14:12, Dan 8:10, Mat 24:29, Mar 13:25, Rev 6:13, 12:4) as the firmament rolled up like a scroll (Rev 6:14). Contrast this with what we now know -- stars are giant balls of flaming gas light years away from the earth that most certainly could not fall to its surface.

The prophecies describing stars falling from the sky describe a literal historical event in the future. This is one of the signs that occur just prior to the return of Christ. Once you understand this we can talk about how you discern the literal and figurative but unless and until you do the conversation will continue to go in circles much as it did with Greg.

Thanks, mark, but you haven't in any way cast doubt on the fact that God accommodates His message to ancient perspectives and motifs of the ANE people.

Your being pedantic, why don't you just focus on what the criteria is for discerning between literal and figurative meanings in the Bible and give up this equivocation of cosmology and figurative language for actual events.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

The Old Testament has no Astronomy, Cosmology or Euclidean geometry that does not tell us anything about the intent of God or the writers of Scripture. Nothing is being accommodated here, ancient clerics, including astronomers described the heaves and they saw them, so what?

The OT is actually full of ancient cosmology, which is described in the articles I cited. Here's just a smattering pulled from the big article I linked to:

Three-Tiered Universe
Gen. 28:12, 17; Ex. 20:4; Rev. 5:3, 13; Phil. 2:10; Luke 16:19-31; (2Esdr. 4:7).
God’s Throne on Waters Above the Heavens
Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Deut. 26:15; Psa. 11:4; 33:13; 103:19; 104:2; 29:3, 10; 104:2-3; 148:4; Jer.
10:12-13; Ezek 28:2; (2Esdr. 4:7-8).
Floodgates in the Heavens
Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Isa. 24:11.
Solid Firmament Vault over the Earth
Gen. 1:6-8, 20; Job 37:18; Ex. 24:10; Job 22:14; Ezek. 1:22-26; Psa. 19:4-6; 104:2; Isa. 40:22;
Prov. 8:27-28; Isa. 45:12; 51:13-14; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Isa. 34:4; Amos 9:7; Rev. 6:13-14;
(3Baruch 3:6-8; 2 Apoc. Baruch 21:4; 2 Enoch 3:3; Pesachim 94b; Peab. 49a; Gen. Rabbah
4.5.2; Josephus Antiquities 1:30).
Stars Embedded in the Firmament
Matt. 24:29; Isa. 34:4; Rev. 6:13; Dan. 8:10; (Sibyl. 5:514).
Flat Disc Earth Surrounded by Circumferential Sea
Prov. 8:27-29; Job 26:10-11; Psa. 19:6; 72:8; Zech. 9:10; Isa. 40:22; Rev. 7:1; 20:8; Isa. 11:12;
Ezek. 7:2; Dan. 4:10-11, 32-33; Matt. 4:8; Isa. 13:5; 41:8-9; Matt. 12:42; Job 37:3; Matt 24:31;
Job 38:12-13; Psa. 136:6; Isa. 42:4; 44:24; Job 11:9; 38:18.
Geocentricity
Psa. 19:4-6; 50:1; Ecc. 1:5; Josh. 10:13; Matt. 5:45.
Immovable Earth
1Chron. 16:30; Psa. 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5.
Pillars under the Earth
Psa. 75:3; 104:5; Job 38:4-6; 26:6; 1 Sam. 2:8; 22:16; Zech. 12:1; Prov. 8:29; (Targum Job 26:7).
Pillars under the Heavens
Job 26:11; 2Sam. 22:8; Isa. 13:13; Joel 2:10.

God regularly refers to this ancient cosmology to demonstrate the order He created and to remind us of His power (Job and the Psalms are prime examples).

Have you noticed, no one is arguing with this?

Great! So you're willing to admit that God spoke to the ancient, limited, and fallible perspectives of the ANE people and did not instead try to speak to modern scientific concerns. So why do you then try to read science from Genesis, knowing that the concordist hermeneutic does not work elsewhere in the Bible?

While that makes perfect sense and is a reasonable inference for Job, Job's cosmology is not discussed in the New Testament.

Sure it is. A prime example is Paul's reference to the ancient three-tiered universe in the Kenotic Hymn (Phil 2:5-11). Revelation also regularly refers to ANE cosmology, as you pointed out earlier (solid firmament, pinprick stars that fall to earth, etc.). Paul further reinforces the ANE cosmology in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41, when he describes the sun as something other than a star. I don't believe these references to this ancient cosmology make that cosmology scientifically accurate, though. These are simply more examples of God accommodating His message to ANE motifs, as He did when He inspired the Flood story.

When are you going to start dealing with real issues and stop equivocating cosmology with sound hermeneutics? You are throwing a lot of semantic verbiage around in an attempt to avoid the central question here, specifically, how you discern a literal history from a figure of speech.

Keep working on that civility thing.

The prophecies describing stars falling from the sky describe a literal historical event in the future. This is one of the signs that occur just prior to the return of Christ.

So how does a single ball of flaming gas 330,000 times the mass of the earth fall to the earth without completely destroying it? Let alone 100 x 10^7.33 of them. I take it you believe that the solid, crystaline firmament above our heads will roll up like a scroll, too?

 

[granpa]

all we can see with science is our 3d universe. We dont know what lies beyond that.
Without knowing everything that is out there we cant know for certain what the bible is referring to.

 

[mark kennedy]

God regularly refers to this ancient cosmology to demonstrate the order He created and to remind us of His power (Job and the Psalms are prime examples).

Not really interested in the list of Bible verses, been through simular lists before. Job and the Psalms have nothing to do with cosmology and why you are pursuing this line of argumentation is obscure, to me at any rate.

Great! So you're willing to admit that God spoke to the ancient, limited, and fallible perspectives of the ANE people and did not instead try to speak to modern scientific concerns. So why do you then try to read science from Genesis, knowing that the concordist hermeneutic does not work elsewhere in the Bible?

Because you are still equivocating figurative language with literal events in figurative language. My original point still stands that there is no such thing as Biblical cosmology, astronomy or euclidean geometry so I'm back to so what?

Sure it is. A prime example is Paul's reference to the ancient three-tiered universe in the Kenotic Hymn (Phil 2:5-11). Revelation also regularly refers to ANE cosmology, as you pointed out earlier (solid firmament, pinprick stars that fall to earth, etc.). Paul further reinforces the ANE cosmology in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41, when he describes the sun as something other than a star. I don't believe these references to this ancient cosmology make that cosmology scientifically accurate, though. These are simply more examples of God accommodating His message to ANE motifs, as He did when He inspired the Flood story.

Only two issues are raised, the Deluge and the passage in I Corinthians 15 and both of them are real world people and events. What literary feature they may have been using does nothing to clarify how you discern between figurative language and historical narratives.

Keep working on that civility thing.

We will see if you ever get to my point regarding your source material first. The 'stars falling from the heavens' are clearly literal cataclysms and the sooner we get to that the better.

So how does a single ball of flaming gas 330,000 times the mass of the earth fall to the earth without completely destroying it? Let alone 100 x 10^7.33 of them. I take it you believe that the solid, crystaline firmament above our heads will roll up like a scroll, too?

It says that the sky recedes like a scroll, this is indicative of a shock wave from God's wrath. It reflects no canonical cosmology but does predict wrath the proceeds the return of Christ. This is about as basic as it gets and you continue to argue around the central issue, how you discern the literal from the figurative and simply saying it's all figurative because you don't like supernatural phenomenon does little to support your point of view.

There are different kinds of 'heavens' mentioned, they are a matter of speaking. I'm well aware of the literary features and how they are used, if they reflect a common form of expression then so be it. That does not mean the Hebrew prophets were repeating pagan myths, it means that there were common ways of speaking.

Now, are you going to get to the criteria for determining the difference between figurative language and actual events or not?

Have a nice day
Mark