Biblical cosmology

[mark kennedy]

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.

We can know what the Bible is referring to because it tells you at the heart of the emphasis. Like I tried to tell Mallon, God tells us about how to get to heaven not how the heavens work. We have all of eternity to explore the universe and God's creation, in fact, we will see it when it's recreated.

We shall see God as he is, that is where the Gospel is taking us. There is also the whole issue of redemptive history and the historical aspect of the Gospel cannot be overstated.

He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Rev. 14:7)

Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?
for thou only art holy:
for all nations shall come and worship before thee;
for thy judgments are made manifest. (Rev 15:3,4)
​

Just a quick question, the wrath described in the Revelation. Is it literal or figurative?

 

[Mallon]

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.

If your response to the evidence-based position that the Bible describes an ancient near eastern cosmology is simply "no it doesn't", then I'm afraid that I don't find your argument convincing.

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?

One of the main points of this thread is that we know that the Hebrew and Christian authors of the Bible weren't using figurative language when they spoke of a flat earth, solid firmament, geocentric universe, etc., because we have solid evidence from surrounding cultures that the ANE people actually believed these things to be literal (e.g., maps portraying a geocentric, three-tiered universe and illustrations of a solid firmament). The Jewish Talmud even provides dimensions for the firmament. It makes no sense to accept that the surrounding cultures and extra-biblical Jewish texts assume an ANE cosmology, but argue that the Bible is just using figurative language when it describes the exact same cosmology.

It says that the sky recedes like a scroll, this is indicative of a shock wave from God's wrath.

No it doesn't. You're superimposing that modernist interpretation on the text. Revelation is clearly saying here that the firmament that surrounds the earth like a tent (which the Bible repeatedly describes as a solid structure) will roll up like a scroll after the stars that are embedded in it fall to earth. Paul's description of the end of the world again reflects an ancient cosmology. Trying to explain the reference to the firmament rolling up like a scroll as figurative while insisting that the reference to the stars falling to earth is literal is inconsistent and does not honour the text or the cultural context of Hebrew people.

I repeat again: The Bible assumes an ancient near eastern cosmology. Therefore, it is wrong to look to the Bible for scientific insight because that was clearly not God's intention.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

In order to get a better understanding of the context being rendered, it's sometimes good to go a little further back. In using the Septuagint, you can get a better view. It's a translation so it is not exact nor does it appear in order. Note the way the "earth" sees, fears and trembles. The context is more apparent.

Take some of the common arguments for example.

1 Chronicles 16:30 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

29 Give to the Lord the glory [belonging] to his name: take gifts and offer [them] before him; and worship the Lord in his holy courts. 30 Let the whole earth fear before him; let the earth be established, and not be moved. 31 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth exult; and let them say among the nations, The Lord reigns.

Psalm 93:1 "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm."

18 If I said, My foot has been moved; 19 thy mercy, O Lord, helped me. O Lord, according to the multitude of my griefs within my heart, thy consolation have soothed my soul.

Psalm 96:10 "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

2 Cloud, and darkness are round about him; righteousness and judgment are the establishment of his throne.

4 His lightnings appeared to the world; the earth saw, and trembled.

Psalm 104:5 Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it can never be shaken"

7 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He has remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded for a thousand generation: 9 which he established as a covenant to Abraam, and [he remembered] his oath to Isaac.

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

12 Or did I order the morning light in thy time; and [did] the morning star [then first] see his appointed place; 13 to lay hold of the extremities of the earth, to cast out the ungodly out of it?

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

27 When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him; and when he prepared his throne upon the winds: 28 and when he strengthened the clouds above; and when he secured the fountains of the earth: 29 [see Appendix] and when he strengthened the foundations of the earth:

etc...

 

[markedward]

To summarize what I'm reading here...

Mallon: Various passages throughout the Bible describe or otherwise assume a "three-tiered" cosmology. In the middle is the earth, otherwise described in terms of being flat, stationary, and resting upon massive pillars. More pillars (the mountains?) hold up a crystalline firmament; within this firmament are the sun and moon and stars, as well as windows that hold back the celestial waters (which otherwise pass through as rain). Above the celestial waters is heaven itself. Below the earth, at the roots of its pillars, is sheol, and beneath that is the abyss, essentially depthless waters. The Bible does not provide any manner of systematic exposition on this cosmology, but, again, various passages in the Bible consistently describe or otherwise assume this cosmology... and this cosmology just so happens to be the same cosmology that is taught and assumed in virtually every contemporary non-Biblical writing that has something to say about the formation of the cosmos. Because everyone at that time thought that this was the way the world was, and the Jews go on to describe this as the way the world was, we have no justifiable reason to simply assume that they didn't actually think that was what the world was actually like. For example, when Joshua commands for the sun to stop in the sky, we have no real reason to assume that Joshua didn't naturally assume that the sun actually was in the sky and could be stopped in place (as opposed to claiming that Joshua actually believed that the earth revolved around the sun and that the earth would be the thing stopping in order for the sun to remain visible for an entire day).

Greg1234: This is an attack on creationism, and/or an argument in favor of Darwin/evolution.

mark kennedy: Although the Bible does consistently describe a cosmology that otherwise agrees with a summarized cosmology of all of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures contemporary to the writers of the Bible, the writers did not believe that this is the way the world worked, and the Bible doesn't teach any model of cosmology.

My thoughts: I agree, more or less, with Mallon. I also agree that I don't understand how in the world Greg1234 could suddenly jump tracks and claim that Mallon was intentionally attacking creationism, or that he was intentionally promoting Darwinism. As to mark kennedy, I agree that the Bible does not systematically teach any model of cosmology, but I think it's incredulous to think that the authors themselves didn't write with an understanding of a particular model of cosmology that they thought was true, especially when the cosmology that shows through here and there in the books of Genesis or Joshua or Job is entirely consistent to how every other ANE culture understood the world. The Babylonians thought that there was X about the physical universe, and the Bible just so happens to describe X as if it was the case. The Egyptians thought that there was Y about the physical universe, and the Bible just so happens to describe Y as if it was the case.

The Bible doesn't teach a three-tiered cosmology, in the sense that it teaches "Jesus is the only way to salvation"... but the Biblical authors did assume that three-tiered cosmology, in the sense that I assume gravity will continue to work as long as the earth is spinning at its present speed and has a consistent amount of mass.

Acknowledging that the Biblical authors assumed such a cosmology that is not presently scientifically accurate does not inherently undermine creationism (the world was still created either way), and it does not inherently promote Darwinism/evolution (how in the world does "the author of Genesis perceived the world as being sheltered by a crystalline firmament holding back celestial waters" equate to "the Darwinian view of evolution is true"?)... but it does necessitate approaching the text of Scripture from another angle, one that is not rooted in post-Enlightenment literalism or scientific concordism... Rather, an angle that says "how would God's originally-intended audience have understood what was being said here?" (e.g. How would Yohanan, a random descendent of the tribe of Judah, standing at the foot of Mount Sinai, have understood Genesis 1's description of a "firmament" when Moses first read the book to the people of Israel?)

 

[Greg1234]

Greg1234: This is an attack on creationism, and/or an argument in favor of Darwin/evolution.

I asked the individual to provide evidence for Darwinism. His understanding of texts, though flawed, isn't relevant. If he wants to assume that they thought the sky was the firmament, then use that as motivation to provide data for Darwinism. Like materialists, the "TE" wants to discuss the degree of beast-man ignorance rather than the fact that man did not descend from beasts.

My thoughts: I agree, more or less, with Mallon. I also agree that I don't understand how in the world Greg1234 could suddenly jump tracks and claim that Mallon was intentionally attacking creationism, or that he was intentionally promoting Darwinism.

Rule of thumb: it's always about Darwinism.

The Bible doesn't teach a three-tiered cosmology, in the sense that it teaches "Jesus is the only way to salvation"... but the Biblical authors did assume that three-tiered cosmology, in the sense that I assume

You can garner a basic understanding here. However, jump low or jump high, age of the earth, pillars or firmament for sky, eventually, you will have to present data for Darwinism.

 

[Mallon]

You hit the nail on the head, markedward. Greg's attempt to make this about "Darwinism" is just avoiding the issue.