P
Philis
Guest
What other cosmologies were there? From what I can see there were differences, but they were all very similar.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What other cosmologies were there? From what I can see there were differences, but they were all very similar.And do you really think that everyone in Moses' time agreed on cosmology?
It is certainly evidence that Genesis is a compilation of books but not that it existed long before Moses or even that Moses compiled it. The reference to the book of the genealogy of Adam does not mean it dates back to Adam, just that it was added when the story was first written in a book, or was written by the editor when the older texts were compiled into the book of Genesis.You see, Moses didn't live until 2000 years after the creation account. But when we look at the book of Genesis we see some interesting things. Such as this:
Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
This gives us good evidence that Genesis is a compilation of books that Moses came into possession of.
I have heard arguments for both Egyptian and Babylonian parallels to Genesis 1. But in both cases it contradicts the pagan religious views. If it was written by Moses it would have been written that way both to contradict the claim of Egyptian religion and to establish the Sabbath which is how Moses uses it in Exodus. It reflects the pagan culture of the time of its writing, but like a reflection in a lake turns it completely upside down. A Babylonian background could suggest as some claim it was written in the exile, but it could also trace back to Abraham who lived in Mesopotamia, the poetic style of Genesis 1 would have made it easier to be handed down orally. Again it would reflects the culture of Babylon by its contradiction of it, just as the book of Colossians reflects the proto-gnostic philosophies Paul wrote it to contradict and Galatians reflects the theology of the Judaisers.In fact, it seems a reasonable inference there were multiple writers that contributed since it covers multiple generations. Thus, it's not correct to assume the original writer of Genesis 1 was of the same culture that even Moses was. Nor is it correct to assume that Moses agreed with every view held in his culture. He rebelled against Egypt and didn't embrace their culture. And do you really think that everyone in Moses' time agreed on cosmology? Something tells me people may have had differing theories back then.
It really doesn't take any forcing, Joshua's long day really does read like he thought the sun moves round the earth and that it was the sun that stopped moving when the miracle took place. Genesis 1 really does suggest the sky is a solid dome holding up the waters with the sun and moon set in it. It fits ancient cosmology beautifully.The bottom line is, the text is the key to understanding the writers views fist and foremost. You've rejected the straightforward reading of the text and attempted to force fit it into ancient pagan science. You're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
I've given in to reading the creation account literally now. But at first I was having a problem, since there were so many conflicting "literal" interpretations out there, many of which were more interpretation than actual literal readings.
So to solve this problem I decided to read it in a way that the original audience would have read it. If I use my presuppositions about the universe to read it, then I will get it wrong. I have to look at what the text actually says.
There are a couple of things to note about the original audience. First, it was a culture that was mainly polytheistic. Second, the universe was water, it was a giant ocean and there was a canopy that kept the water from crashing down (obviously, why else would the sky be blue). Finally, they were more concerned with a functional ontology than a material ontology. To us, "nothing" literally means "nothing". But to them "nothing" applied to anything without a function. For example, the mud on the bottom of the nile was formless and void, it was without purpose. This is why the imagery of a potter is so powerful for that culture.
So now the universe is a giant ocean. So what does God do? He makes the heavens and the earth. The ANE readers would have understood this to be a formless functionless lump of dirt in the middle of the waters (under the waters as well) and the heavens would have been above the waters. The earth is even described as formless and void, and God is hovering over the face of the waters (in the heavens).
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Then He makes the light and darkness which I will skip over for now.
Then God makes a solid dome above the earth to keep out the waters above. There are waters above the dome, and waters below the dome.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Then God gave the functionless land function by gathering it together to form land.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Skipping a little bit again we get to the sun/moon/stars being made. They were placed in the firmament. This means there would have been water above them. Reading this literally from the ANE perspective makes perfect sense, yet no literalist was able to explain this part to me without interpreting the text (in other words, not taking it literally).
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
So looking at the structure of the universe that the creation account actually describes, and taking into consideration how the immediate audience would have literally read it, there's a few conclusions I've come to.
God was more concerned with correcting their theology than giving a science lesson. He made it clear that there was only one God. He didn't even use the proper words for sun and moon because in Hebrew those are words for gods. He set up the framework of the story in such a way that he made kingdoms the first three days and the kings the next three days (Light day 1 ruled by luminaries day 4, sky/water day 2 ruled by birds/fish day 5, land/vegitation day 3 ruled by man/animals day 6) and then a rest. It creates an image of a workweek for people to follow that is used later in scripture as well.
Obviously, this can't be taken as literal science. This isn't some attempt to smuggle Darwin into Christianity, it's what theologians have been saying since long before Darwin. You can't reasonably think that God made light before lights, even the early church fathers pointed that out. And why would God bother making water just to separate it later? With the modern literal view there is no point, but with the view the ANE crowd had, it makes perfect sense (the universe was a giant oceans so it had to be separated).
The interesting conclusion I draw from this is that the YEC view isn't literal, it's actually concordism. Instead of reading it literally in the same way it was read 2,000 years ago, they adjust it to fit their modern understanding of science. In doing so a lot of the original meaning is lost. Trying so hard to make it fit science means missing out on understanding what was being said to the ancient culture.
This is just the first half of the first of 3 chapters. I'll leave it at this for now so this isn't too long. For those who don't agree with me I don't expect to change your mind, I just hope you'll put in the effort to understand my view better.
Augustine, Kant, Origen, CS Lewis and more are all people who reject the resurrection and the inspiration of the bible? Who did you think my sources were exactly?
What other cosmologies were there? From what I can see there were differences, but they were all very similar.
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Calminian you are just not reading v8 in context, it explicitly says in v7 that the firmament divides the earthly waters from the heavenly or cosmic waters, Seely's claim holds, regardless of how you want to interpret v8 as it is based on the conjunction of both v7 and v8
yes it does. Well, not heavenly waters, but waters above the heavens. There is no heavenly waters mentioned. But it says nothing about an ocean. The waters of Genesis 1:2 are not ocean waters. Read the text very carefully. The sea is not made until verse 9. Both the sea and the land are made out of these waters. Whatever the waters of Genesis 1:2 were, they are separated from us by heaven itself. And according to a psalmist they are still up there, not just in the sky between us and the heavens but above the heavens.
Russell Humphreys wrote a book called Starlight and Time where he does a very good exegesis of this. Here's my exegesis if you're interested.
How about the cosmology taught in Genesis 1? That the firmament was the name for heaven?
To my knowledge you've not commented on Gen. 1:8 yet. You said you were going to get back to me on that.
Other than that, I don't know where scriptures actually gets into the structure of the universe in any detail. There is come poetry calling clouds are called jars and doors of heaven. We are told what's in the heavens, but not giving any details about the structure.
But scripture most definitely is at odds with Seely's claim that the firmament is a barrier between heaven and earth holding up a heavenly ocean. This idea seem to be contradicted in Genesis 1:8.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament heaven. I think you may have it the wrong way around. Heaven was the name of the firmament, firmament was the description of what God called heaven.How about the cosmology taught in Genesis 1? That the firmament was the name for heaven? To my knowledge you've not commented on Gen. 1:8 yet. You said you were going to get back to me on that.
On my way to bed and I don't have all my sources and references in front of me, but what I gather so far is that there are the heavens above the waters, and the firmament is also called the heavens. In other words there is more than one place that is referred to as the heavens.How about the cosmology taught in Genesis 1? That the firmament was the name for heaven? To my knowledge you've not commented on Gen. 1:8 yet. You said you were going to get back to me on that.
On my way to bed and I don't have all my sources and references in front of me, but what I gather so far is that there are the heavens above the waters, and the firmament is also called the heavens. In other words there is more than one place that is referred to as the heavens.
Again, I don't have the verses in front of me but I know there is support for this, the Mormons even use the verses to justify their multi tier view of heaven.
I'm still putting together a more thorough, well-referenced response. Since my life apart from this forum is important to me I'm not rushing to get it done. Sorry but you may be waiting.
Actually, you have that backwards. God called the firmament "heaven/sky". He didn't call heaven/sky "firmament". So heaven/sky is the name of the firmament.....
On my way to bed and I don't have all my sources and references in front of me, but what I gather so far is that there are the heavens above the waters, and the firmament is also called the heavens. In other words there is more than one place that is referred to as the heavens.....
Nope, there's not a 1-1 correspondence. God makes the heavens and the earth at the beginning. Later He makes the firmament, after making the heavens, and He calls the firmament heaven as well. If He already made heaven as He says in verse one, and if the heavens are the firmament, then why did He have to create the firmament a second time? It makes the most sense, when read literally, to see it as two different places that are referred to as the Heavens.Let's review and take it one at a time and let me know if this lines up with a straight forward reading of the text.
In Genesis, God called the expanse (the firmament) the heavens. He called the dry ground land (earth) and he called the gathered waters the seas (that word gathered is very important). Heaven is merely the name of the expanse. It's also the only name give to the expanse in Genesis 1. Thus heaven is a firmament and the firmament of Genesis 1. There is a 1-1 correspondence. So far so good?
Nope, there's not a 1-1 correspondence. God makes the heavens and the earth at the beginning. Later He makes the firmament, after making the heavens, and He calls the firmament heaven as well. If He already made heaven as He says in verse one, and if the heavens are the firmament, then why did He have to create the firmament a second time? It makes the most sense, when read literally, to see it as two different places that are referred to as the Heavens.
Yes, in the heaven with waters above itThen later we learn God sets his sun moon and stars in this very heaven.
Why does that mean they didn't view it as a solid mass?We also know the clouds move through this heaven, showing the writers didn't view it as a solid mass.
Yet, a lot of literalists use Genesis 1:1 as evidence that God made everything ex nihlo. Often if a someone calls that verse a title they are labeled as a liberal by the literalists. Yet here you are, literally interpreting it differently than other literalists. (FYI, I kind of agree with the title aspect to the verse but haven't made any conclusions yet.)Now I simply read Genesis 1:1 as a summary. In the beginning God created the heavens and earth and here's how it happened. God then explains how the heavens and earth were formedhe created an expanse, he formed the earth and sea out of water, etc. It's not that God created 2 earths, but rather He took the earth from a formless state to a solid state. Then He expanded the heavens.
I have a theory of 4 heavens? How did you get that idea? Why are you talking about two earths?Plus the word heavens (shamayim) is already plural. So do we now have at least 4 heavens? Well, Paul doesn't seem to agree, as he only speaks of 3. Also the tabernacle is said to be an early model of heaven, and it only has 3 areas. This would seem to be a huge problem for your theory of at least 4. And we're never told of two earths.
He used the name "heaven" to describe the firmament. I don't understand what your question is. You described multiple heavens just as I had stated, we seem to agree on that. So what are you asking? Or better yet, what do you think I've been trying to say?And just to make one last point, if the firmament and heaven really are different, why in the world would God use the same name and a plural name at that for both? Does that really make sense to you? Are you really trying to let the text speak, or are you trying to fit the text into something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?