Pyramids and the flood

[Job 33:6]

One, because I have never even heard of them. They are not the core of the Christ followers of the world. Most rabbis don't even believe that Jesus is God's Son or the Messiah, so these minor sects and (yes) fringe groups are of no consequence.

Even among Christian Evangelical scholars today, the majority recognize that Genesis describes an ancient near east cosmology.

 

[River Jordan]

There are many Messianic Jews who believe the truth, and believe in the correct Scriptures. The majority of the Judaic Jews (non-Messianic) also believe in the same OT Scriptures that are in the 66 book Bible. As for the catholic and orthodox religions, they have so many false doctrines, practices, etc. that they are almost unrecognizable as Christian religions, other than that they call themselves "Christian", and this site's leadership refuses to acknowledge that they are not. So their views no what is and what is not Scripture is automatically suspect.

None of the Scriptures come from the Jews, catholics, or orthodox. It all comes from God (granted, the OT came through the Jews). What each of those groups recognize as Scripture is irrelevant to the truth. What ancient documents contain God's Word is what matters. And the extra books in what the catholics and orthodox religions recognize as Scripture contradict what is in the 66 book Bible, so they cannot be accepted as Scripture.

It seems you've set it up to where the only entities that are reliable are those that agree with you, and that only Protestant denominations have "the truth".

So much for taking as much info into consideration as one can, eh?

There are many practices we can have (like eating meat that was sacrificed to an idol) where we can have differing views and both still be right (1 Cor 8). But in many instances in Scripture there is only one "right" and everything else is wrong. If you are arguing that one species changes into another over time, and that all life sprang from slime in a pond billions of years ago, then yes, I feel that should be argued against

But here's the problem. New species evolving from other species is something we've seen happen. So for people like me who've studied and works in biology, you're saying that I have to choose between what I see of God's creation with my own eyes, and your interpretation of scripture.

That's why I keep likening this to the Galileo debacle. Some people think themselves so infallible that they expect everyone else's views to align with theirs, up to and including denying physical realities that we directly see.

My view is that when I see something in God's creation that is inconsistent with a particular interpretation of scripture, then I need to take a second look at that interpretation.

because Scripture is very clear that each kind of animal and plant breeds true to the same kind of animal or plant.

No, not really. And "kind" is never defined anyways so whether a newly evolved species is a new "kind" is something we can never determine. That's another clue that Genesis isn't a science report. If it were, "kind" would have been clearly defined.

There is no room for "evolution" in Scripture's account of Creation.

Only in your interpretative framework.

So yes, there are some areas where we can agree to disagree and both of us be right with God. But there are some areas where there is only one truth, and I believe it should be fought for.

And that "one truth" just happens to be your view, and everyone else is wrong. That's not a very humble approach IMO.

 

[Doug Brents]

It seems you've set it up to where the only entities that are reliable are those that agree with you, and that only Protestant denominations have "the truth".

So much for taking as much info into consideration as one can, eh?

There is a difference between establishing what you believe and then saying that all those who believe as I do are right and everyone else is wrong (as you insinuate above), and determining what is right and true and then standing for the truth even when no one else is with you.

The 66 books of the Bible contain a great many reasons to consider it 100% reliable. But the other writings of other religious groups do not stand up to the same level of dependability. So it is not that I believe I am right and all of the other religions are wrong. It is that I believe that all the other religions are wrong, so I have decided to side with the only one that has proven to be trustworthy.

But here's the problem. New species evolving from other species is something we've seen happen. So for people like me who've studied and works in biology, you're saying that I have to choose between what I see of God's creation with my own eyes, and your interpretation of scripture.

That's why I keep likening this to the Galileo debacle. Some people think themselves so infallible that they expect everyone else's views to align with theirs, up to and including denying physical realities that we directly see.

My view is that when I see something in God's creation that is inconsistent with a particular interpretation of scripture, then I need to take a second look at that interpretation.

No, not really. And "kind" is never defined anyways so whether a newly evolved species is a new "kind" is something we can never determine. That's another clue that Genesis isn't a science report. If it were, "kind" would have been clearly defined.

You are correct. "Kind" is not explained in Scripture as to what level of categorization it would fall under. And I guess I have been using too precise a word in speaking of "species". Is a dalmatian a different species than a rottweiler? I don't know, nor does it really matter; they are both the same "kind" of animal (a dog). Dogs do not become cats. Lizards do not become birds. Apes do not become man. And life does not originate from lightning striking a primordial ooze in a pond. Even the most basic of protein could not originate by any form of accident. It is not just the placement of the amino acids in the right order, but the folding and twisting of the resulting chain into the correct form that results in each specific protein. That simple molecule proves intelligent design (creation).

And that "one truth" just happens to be your view, and everyone else is wrong. That's not a very humble approach IMO.

I would not have chosen to stand for it if I did not believe it to be true. But I do not choose a position and then search for reasons to support it. I have examined all of the options out there, and find that the Bible is the most reliable source of information out there.

 

[River Jordan]

There is a difference between establishing what you believe and then saying that all those who believe as I do are right and everyone else is wrong (as you insinuate above), and determining what is right and true and then standing for the truth even when no one else is with you.

The 66 books of the Bible contain a great many reasons to consider it 100% reliable. But the other writings of other religious groups do not stand up to the same level of dependability. So it is not that I believe I am right and all of the other religions are wrong. It is that I believe that all the other religions are wrong, so I have decided to side with the only one that has proven to be trustworthy.

Ok thanks for explaining.

You are correct. "Kind" is not explained in Scripture as to what level of categorization it would fall under. And I guess I have been using too precise a word in speaking of "species". Is a dalmatian a different species than a rottweiler? I don't know, nor does it really matter; they are both the same "kind" of animal (a dog). Dogs do not become cats. Lizards do not become birds. Apes do not become man. And life does not originate from lightning striking a primordial ooze in a pond. Even the most basic of protein could not originate by any form of accident. It is not just the placement of the amino acids in the right order, but the folding and twisting of the resulting chain into the correct form that results in each specific protein. That simple molecule proves intelligent design (creation).

The problem here is you recognized that "kind" has no definition, but then you declared that dogs are a "kind". Do you see the problem there?

And as far as evolution and biology are concerned, I hope you understand that as a biologist I'm not going to just ditch everything I've worked on and seen with my own eyes merely because of what you write in a post. If you have some actual info that you think I should consider, feel free to share. But you just saying so? Nah.

I would not have chosen to stand for it if I did not believe it to be true. But I do not choose a position and then search for reasons to support it. I have examined all of the options out there, and find that the Bible is the most reliable source of information out there.

Ok, thanks for sharing.

 

[Doug Brents]

The problem here is you recognized that "kind" has no definition, but then you declared that dogs are a "kind". Do you see the problem there?

In a micromanaged sort of way, I know what you are talking about. You, as a scientist, want to put everything in a nice, neat, defined box. But Scripture doesn't always do that. Sometimes it leaves it to our logic to figure it out. We know for certain that "kind" is lower on the totem than our "kingdom" designation, because God created different "kinds" of plants and different "kinds" of animals. Are there different kinds of animals and plants? Yes. Dogs are very different from cats, are very different from sheep, are very different from horses, etc. And the same can be said of the different "kinds" of plants: herbs, trees, grasses, etc.

And as far as evolution and biology are concerned, I hope you understand that as a biologist I'm not going to just ditch everything I've worked on and seen with my own eyes merely because of what you write in a post. If you have some actual info that you think I should consider, feel free to share. But you just saying so? Nah.

As for the "origin of species" evolution that Darwin theorized, he said himself that if anything can be found that cannot be shown to develop over time through a step by step process it will destroy his whole theory. I give you the "eye".
Darwin suggested that natural selection could account for the development of the human eye if it proceeded from simpler and less perfect eyes through a series of numerous successive slight modifications. Some organisms such as planaria (left) have simple eyespots. A fish eye (center) is more complex, but not to the extent of the human eye.

However, nearly anything can be put in an order such as bicycle, motorbike, car, jet, and space shuttle. Lining up objects or organisms does not explain how they came to be. It also does not demonstrate that natural selection is responsible for the change.

The research of McGinnis and colleagues1 seemed to suggest that a mutation in a particular Hox gene was sufficient to suppress the development of legs. This mutation was believed to be responsible for the conversion of shrimp-like creatures with many legs into insect-like creatures with only six legs.

However, this is really just a straw-man argument because creationists do not claim that mutations cannot alter the body plan. Rather, they claim that mutations do not lead to an increase in information. Indeed, reducing the number of legs may alter the body plan, but it does not explain the origin of legs in the first place. Nor does it explain where the genetic information to produce wings came from.

Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new organs and systems.
If the genetic information existed in the simpler animal to produce the more complex organs, but it was simply suppressed, then that speaks of creation (intelligent design by a designer). But if it was not there to begin with, how did new, more complex information spontaneously appear in the organism? It is in direct contradiction of the law of decay. Things tend toward chaos, decay, less complexity, not order, growth, and increased complexity, unless impacted by intelligence and design.

 

[River Jordan]

In a micromanaged sort of way, I know what you are talking about. You, as a scientist, want to put everything in a nice, neat, defined box.

Not really. It's more that words need to have definitions, and if a word is undefined it's effectively meaningless.

But Scripture doesn't always do that. Sometimes it leaves it to our logic to figure it out.

Or it could be that it was never intended to be a claim about biology in the first place, so evaluating it from that POV misses the entire point.

As for the "origin of species" evolution that Darwin theorized, he said himself that if anything can be found that cannot be shown to develop over time through a step by step process it will destroy his whole theory. I give you the "eye".
Darwin suggested that natural selection could account for the development of the human eye if it proceeded from simpler and less perfect eyes through a series of numerous successive slight modifications. Some organisms such as planaria (left) have simple eyespots. A fish eye (center) is more complex, but not to the extent of the human eye.

However, nearly anything can be put in an order such as bicycle, motorbike, car, jet, and space shuttle. Lining up objects or organisms does not explain how they came to be. It also does not demonstrate that natural selection is responsible for the change.

The research of McGinnis and colleagues1 seemed to suggest that a mutation in a particular Hox gene was sufficient to suppress the development of legs. This mutation was believed to be responsible for the conversion of shrimp-like creatures with many legs into insect-like creatures with only six legs.

However, this is really just a straw-man argument because creationists do not claim that mutations cannot alter the body plan. Rather, they claim that mutations do not lead to an increase in information. Indeed, reducing the number of legs may alter the body plan, but it does not explain the origin of legs in the first place. Nor does it explain where the genetic information to produce wings came from.

If you don't mind, I have to ask something. Do you believe you know biology better than biologists? Do you believe you know more about evolution than evolutionary biologists?

Also, do you think no scientist has ever studied or researched the evolution of the eye?

Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of new information and new genes that produce new organs and systems.
If the genetic information existed in the simpler animal to produce the more complex organs, but it was simply suppressed, then that speaks of creation (intelligent design by a designer). But if it was not there to begin with, how did new, more complex information spontaneously appear in the organism? It is in direct contradiction of the law of decay. Things tend toward chaos, decay, less complexity, not order, growth, and increased complexity, unless impacted by intelligence and design.

That's just wrong. "New genetic information" is something we see being produced all the time. If you disagree, then please start by explaining what you mean by "genetic information".

 

[Doug Brents]

Not really. It's more that words need to have definitions, and if a word is undefined it's effectively meaningless.

The word is not meaningless. It just doesn't have a meaning that you understand or have quantified. As I showed, it is certainly somewhere lesser than kingdom, but greater than species. We certainly know, from what we read in Scripture, that plants do not become animals and animals do not become plants, and they do not have any possibility of a common ancestor. (So now we have at least two different sets of ooze that have to have started in that primordial pool.) We also know that God crated birds separately from the animals that walk the earth, and the animals that swim in the seas. So now we have at least three separate divisions of animal, but these are not "kinds" because each of these is spoken of as containing many "kinds" of animals. You see where I am going here? It is not a meaningless concept, we just have to use some deductive reading to discover how far down the "kind" is down the current classification totem.

Or it could be that it was never intended to be a claim about biology in the first place, so evaluating it from that POV misses the entire point.

There is a lot to be seen in Scripture that doesn't at first seem like it is what it says. For example, as Oliver DeMille shows in one of his books, the founders of the US used the passage in Genesis (Gen 1:16) to design the US governmental system. By reading that one verse they saw separation of powers, checks and balances, three branches of government, and some other details as well that I don't remember right now.

My point is that what He describes in Scripture is truth, be it about biology, history, government, religion, or whatever. If He says that there are certain "kinds" of animals, and those "kinds" breed true without exception, then that is the way that it is, period. If we find something that we would think of as a "kind" of animal (species) that doesn't breed true in every case, then we know that is not what a "kind" is that He is talking about.

If you don't mind, I have to ask something. Do you believe you know biology better than biologists? Do you believe you know more about evolution than evolutionary biologists?

Certainly not.

Also, do you think no scientist has ever studied or researched the evolution of the eye?

Of course they have. But as noted in the excerpt I quoted, when you assume evolution, you get into a circular reasoning that becomes self-fulfilling.

That's just wrong. "New genetic information" is something we see being produced all the time. If you disagree, then please start by explaining what you mean by "genetic information".

New genetic information would be the genetics that produce structures in an offspring that were not present in the parent. An example would be wings. As has been demonstrated in the invention of flying machines by man, the required curvature, strength to weight ratio, angle of attack, flexibility, etc. are far more complex than is present or required in a land or sea based limb. If the genetic code for wings (or any "stepping stone" along the way from arm to wing) existed in the parent then we should either find it expressed in the parent (where it must have had an "evolutionary" advantage over not having it), or it was suppressed for some reason. But its existence and suppression points toward a creator, because there would be no need for it if it were not expressed (it would produce no "evolutionary" advantage if it were suppressed). But if it didn't exist in the parent in any way, shape, or form then were did it come from? More complex things do not spontaneously occur. All things tend toward less complex, not more; toward less order, not more. The law of biogenesis states that, "all living things must originate from pre-existing life, and cannot spontaneously appear from non-living matter." But evolution contends that this "LAW" was violated at some point in the far past in order to make the original "things" that became other things that became (over a long line of "things") humans.

 

[River Jordan]

The word is not meaningless.

It is in the taxonomic context you're trying to use it in.

As I showed, it is certainly somewhere lesser than kingdom, but greater than species.

That's like saying "It's a letter, somewhere between A and Z".

We certainly know, from what we read in Scripture, that plants do not become animals and animals do not become plants, and they do not have any possibility of a common ancestor.

That's not stated in scripture.

(So now we have at least two different sets of ooze that have to have started in that primordial pool.) We also know that God crated birds separately from the animals that walk the earth, and the animals that swim in the seas. So now we have at least three separate divisions of animal, but these are not "kinds" because each of these is spoken of as containing many "kinds" of animals. You see where I am going here? It is not a meaningless concept, we just have to use some deductive reading to discover how far down the "kind" is down the current classification totem.

But the only reason someone would do that in the first place is if they think "kind" was intended to be a means of taxonomic classification. I don't see any reason to see it that way.

My point is that what He describes in Scripture is truth, be it about biology, history, government, religion, or whatever. If He says that there are certain "kinds" of animals, and those "kinds" breed true without exception, then that is the way that it is, period. If we find something that we would think of as a "kind" of animal (species) that doesn't breed true in every case, then we know that is not what a "kind" is that He is talking about.

That assumes your reading, such as believing "kind" was intended in a scientific context, reflects God's intent, which then sets it up where anyone who disagrees with your personal interpretation is therefore disagreeing with God.

But just like the Christians who interpreted scripture as describing a flat earth that doesn't move, your interpretation could be wrong and one really good way to find out is to see if that interpretation meshes with God's creation.

Certainly not.

Then don't you think you should take a very humble approach when discussing, and especially debating, biology? Isn't it like someone who's never studied the Bible trying to debate the Bible?

Of course they have.

Have you ever read any of their work?

But as noted in the excerpt I quoted, when you assume evolution, you get into a circular reasoning that becomes self-fulfilling.

No, that wasn't even close to right.

New genetic information would be the genetics that produce structures in an offspring that were not present in the parent.

Why just structures? Why not biochemical systems? Or new traits?

An example would be wings. As has been demonstrated in the invention of flying machines by man, the required curvature, strength to weight ratio, angle of attack, flexibility, etc. are far more complex than is present or required in a land or sea based limb. If the genetic code for wings (or any "stepping stone" along the way from arm to wing) existed in the parent then we should either find it expressed in the parent (where it must have had an "evolutionary" advantage over not having it), or it was suppressed for some reason. But its existence and suppression points toward a creator, because there would be no need for it if it were not expressed (it would produce no "evolutionary" advantage if it were suppressed). But if it didn't exist in the parent in any way, shape, or form then were did it come from? More complex things do not spontaneously occur.

Just to make sure I have this right, you think biologists believe the evolution of the avian wing occurred when a parent with no wings at all gave birth to offspring with fully functional wings?

All things tend toward less complex, not more; toward less order, not more.

Over the course of the life of the universe, yes. But as long as energy is available local increases in order occur all the time. It's how chemistry works! Individual atoms bond to form much more complex molecules every second of every day!!

The law of biogenesis states that, "all living things must originate from pre-existing life, and cannot spontaneously appear from non-living matter." But evolution contends that this "LAW" was violated at some point in the far past in order to make the original "things" that became other things that became (over a long line of "things") humans.

I'm curious about something. Do you think biologists have never thought of any of these things you bring up? Do you think no scientist has ever worked on any of this?

 

[stevevw]

Its interesting to think about whether the pyramids were around before or after the flood. Evidence shows that the Sinai and infact most of north Africa, the Levant and into Babylon, Iran and Iraq and the entire fertile crescent was green around 5,000 years ago. Even if we want to say it was only 3,000 years ago to fit in with the 6,000 year old earth these two extremes from tropics to desert happened in our recent past.

We have ample evidence from lidar images of ancient rivers that wound through all these lands and various texts and archeological finds of crops and water ways through cities and across the land. This was a time when rivers would flood that perhaps the flood myths are based on.

But heres the thing we also have evidence that this was a reoccuring climate change from tropics to desert and back again. There are places which show water erosion from 10,000 plus years ago. But this is not from floods but a gradual erosion showing 1,000s of years of slow erosion cutting deep into the granite.

But these are not global size floods. The only time that the earth was under global size floods was during the Younger Dryas period around 12 to 14,000 years ago. Now some say the Great pyramids and not the later pyramids of smaller mud bricks but the megalithic ones of hard stone may be 10,000 plus years old.

These megaliths throughout the world seem to peak and then the cultures disappeared. Only for later cultures to come along and inherent this megaliths and honor then like they were from the gods. Their own stories speak of the gods building these great works.

So perhaps in our history there was a time where mighty cultures throughout the world including the early and predynastic Egyptians rose up to a point where they defied God and were destroyed. In that sense the great pyramids would have been before the flood.

Its interesting that in all the Egyptian Hyroglyphs and wall paintings they never once refer to how they built the mega pyramids and other great works. The only depictions and references are to later dynasties like Ramese. They show how they made things like the mud bricks and pottery but they never show anything before that period from the early and pre dynastics.

They do have their own stories and KIngs list but this stretches back some 30,000 years and mainstream archeologist quickly dismiss this as myth. But there is some evidence showing the Egyptian culture goes back well before the dynastic Egyptians came along.

Like I said precision granite vases were found in the first dysnatic pharoahs Stepped pyramid which is dated around 4,700 years which were inhereted by Djoser and are at least 6,000 years old.

 

[Platte]

Regarding the flood I kind of like the answer...
We have facts, and then we have interpretations of the facts. Near the top of Everest there are millions of sea shells. That's a fact.
You can believe that it was from the flood of Noah's day, or you can believe it was a local flood thousands of years before, or millions of years before. They are just theories (or 'religious' views).

The pyramids are there, that is a fact.
You can believe they were built after the world wide flood of Noah's day, or you can believe they were build a few thousand years before that. But they are both just theories (or 'religious' views).

I am not aware of any Mountain where we have not found marine fossils or seashells.

 

[Platte]

Even among Christian Evangelical scholars today, the majority recognize that Genesis describes an ancient near east cosmology.

I thought you said the Bible was not a scientific book. If it’s not scientific then it’s perspective. I’ll admit I refer to sunsets and sunrises. I’ll confess to making statements about the tide coming in and going out. Statements I make based on perspective - not science. Science will accurately tell you that the earth is rotating and the sun isn’t moving around the earth and setting and rising. And the tide isn’t really going in and out. It’s the earth rotating and the gravitational pull. The tide is actually staying the same.

 

[Job 33:6]

I thought you said the Bible was not a scientific book. If it’s not scientific then it’s perspective. I’ll admit I refer to sunsets and sunrises. I’ll confess to making statements about the tide coming in and going out. Statements I make based on perspective - not science. Science will accurately tell you that the earth is rotating and the sun isn’t moving around the earth and setting and rising. And the tide isn’t really going in and out. It’s the earth rotating and the gravitational pull. The tide is actually staying the same.

Cosmology, in an ancient context, is not science.

Is there something about the video that you viewed to be scientific?

 

[Platte]

Cosmology, in an ancient context, is not science.

Is there something about the video that you viewed to be scientific?

No, my point is that no scripture in the Bible provides a cosmological view of the universe - simply perspective views the same way we do today.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, my point is that no scripture in the Bible provides a cosmological view of the universe - simply perspective views the same way we do today.

That's what ancient isrealite cosmology is, it's a perspective view of the cosmos. It is phenomenological and it is cosmological.

"I thought you said the Bible was not a scientific book. " This is correct.

These concepts relate both to the structure of the cosmos (the sky, the underworld, the waters above and below, the pillars of the earth etc.)

But it is simultaneously phenomenological or a perspective view. Such as, like you noted, Joshua 10. The blue sky is described as waters above. Much of the text around the underworld is poetic or figurative. Genesis 7;11 and 8;2 describe Windows and gates in the sky that release and restrain water. It is nothing phenomenological, it relates to perspective through figurative language. But it also relates to the structure of the cosmos as well.

 

[Platte]

That's what ancient isrealite cosmology is, it's a perspective view of the cosmos. It is phenomenological and it is cosmological.

"I thought you said the Bible was not a scientific book. " This is correct.

These concepts relate both to the structure of the cosmos (the sky, the underworld, the waters above and below, the pillars of the earth etc.)

But it is simultaneously phenomenological or a perspective view. Such as, like you noted, Joshua 10. The blue sky is described as waters above. Much of the text around the underworld is poetic or figurative. Genesis 7;11 and 8;2 describe Windows and gates in the sky that release and restrain water. It is nothing phenomenological, it relates to perspective through figurative language. But it also relates to the structure of the cosmos as well.

The Bible offers no ancient Israelites view on cosmology. No scripture attempt to describe a cosmological view of the universe. When I make a statement regarding a sunset or regarding the tide going out. Neither are scientific nor cosmological in nature but merely my perspective of what I’m seeing. Cosmology is a scientific study.

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible offers no ancient Israelites view on cosmology. No scripture attempt to describe a cosmological view of the universe. When I make a statement regarding a sunset or regarding the tide going out. Neither are scientific nor cosmological in nature but merely my perspective of what I’m seeing. Cosmology is a scientific study.

You're confusing cosmology with a scientific study here. That's not what I'm talking about. Id recommend reading up on ancient isrealite cosmology. You keep repeating yourself but you're not understanding the subject matter.

In the ANE context, cosmology is the worldview or system of beliefs about how the heavens, Earth, and underworld were structured, maintained, and controlled, often through the involvement of divine beings or forces.

A more straightforward example would be something like the Bibles frequent reference of the raqia, or the vault in the sky with windows in it that open and close. (Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). This has nothing to do with science, but it is a cosmological concept related to a phenomenological view of the sky (the blue sky and the waters above).

Genesis 8:2 ESV
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

Or we might consider the underworld sheol:
Isaiah 14:9-11 ESV
[9] Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. [10] All of them will answer and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ [11] Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Or in numbers:
Numbers 16:32-33 ESV
[32] And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

Again, this has nothing to do with science. But it gives a description, poetically, related to the structure of the cosmos. An underworld beneath us.

So, please do me a favor and stop bringing up science. This discussion is not about science.

But we can look at these verses:
9] Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. [10] All of them will answer and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ [11] Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Numbers 16:32-33 ESV
[32] And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

And in terms of the structure of the cosmos, just look at what it says. It describes an underworld below us that we might fall into, called sheol. That the earth might open up and swallow is. It's not about science. But more broadly in a poetic nature, is about cosmology.

 

[Platte]

You're confusing cosmology with a scientific study here. That's not what I'm talking about. Id recommend reading up on ancient isrealite cosmology. You keep repeating yourself but you're not understanding the subject matter.

In the ANE context, cosmology is the worldview or system of beliefs about how the heavens, Earth, and underworld were structured, maintained, and controlled, often through the involvement of divine beings or forces.

Actually cosmology deals with how the earth was formed but has no study into the structure of the earth such as the geological or structural layers of the crust or earth.

A more straightforward example would be something like the Bibles frequent reference of the raqia, or the vault in the sky with windows in it that open and close. (Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). This has nothing to do with science, but it is a cosmological concept related to a phenomenological view of the sky (the blue sky and the waters above).

A cosmological concept and a perspective concept are two totally and distant points of view. It is dishonest and disingenuous to infer one automatically with the other.
Prior to the flood - what do you know about the atmospheric difference that allow you to comment on it?

Genesis 8:2 ESV
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

Or we might consider the underworld sheol:
Isaiah 14:9-11 ESV
[9] Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. [10] All of them will answer and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ [11] Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Or in numbers:
Numbers 16:32-33 ESV
[32] And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

Again, this has nothing to do with science. But it gives a description, poetically, related to the structure of the cosmos. An underworld beneath us.

So, please do me a favor and stop bringing up science. This discussion is not about science.

The underworld beneath the ground is not a cosmological concept. Have you been to the center of the earth? Can you describe it? Have you not seen movies where the ground opens up and swallows people?

But we can look at these verses:
9] Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. [10] All of them will answer and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ [11] Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Numbers 16:32-33 ESV
[32] And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

And in terms of the structure of the cosmos, just look at what it says. It describes an underworld below us that we might fall into, called sheol. That the earth might open up and swallow is. It's not about science. But more broadly in a poetic nature, is about cosmology.

What’s under the ground, including the fire and magma beneath us, is not cosmology

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually cosmology deals with how the earth was formed but has no study into the structure of the earth such as the geological or structural layers of the crust or earth.

Ancient near eastern cosmology can be divided into its cosmography, the physical structure and features of the cosmos; and cosmogony, the creation myths that describe the origins of the cosmos in the texts and traditions of the ancient near eastern world.[1]

The cosmogony of ancient Mesopotamia

Original English text of: Die Kosmogonie des alten Mesopotamien, in: Marion Gindhart and Tanja Pommerening (eds.), Anfang & Ende: vormoderne Szenarien von Weltenstehung und Weltuntergang (Darmstadt: von Zabern, 2016) 7–25, 132–33, 140

www.academia.edu

You can believe whatever definition you want to believe. But I'm talking about Biblical cosmology as understood in old testament studies.

So either we can agree on the subject, or we won't be able to have a conversation.

The term “cosmology” refers to the way in which we understand the structure of the universe. The biblical writers’ concept of how the heavens and earth were structured by God represents a particular cosmology. This cosmology involves ideas about where God dwells within the known “universe” and reflects the writer’s experience or understanding of the world, not historical or scientific fact. For example, cosmologies include descriptions about places and events humans do not experience until death or unless permitted to do so by an act of God.

The Israelites believed in a universe structure that was common among the civilizations of the ancient Near East. This structure included three parts: a heavenly realm for the gods, an earthly realm for humans, and an underworld for the dead. The vocabulary of the Israelites’ cosmology is also similar to that found in the literature of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan.

Ancient vs Modern Cosmology

I wanted to take a session to discuss and revisit something we’ve talked about before in our series on the Supernatural by Dr. Michael Heiser. This will come up again later in the Fall on our study over Genesis. And that is the concept of Cosmology. I think one of the biggest problems in the...

sermons.logos.com

You don't seem to be capable of talking about Biblical cosmology without confusing it with science.

Cosmos. The first dimension of divine presence or manifestation is the cos-
mos or nature. Polytheistic cosmology views the cosmos as a cooperative pro-
cess: the deities cooperate in creating and maintaining the world. In Egypt, the
sun-god and his daily course across the sky and the underworld beneath the
earth form the center of this processual cosmology.

https://evol-biol.ru/docs/docs/large_files/ancient.pdf#page=78

 

[Job 33:6]

The underworld beneath the ground is not a cosmological concept. Have you been to the center of the earth? Can you describe it? Have you not seen movies where the ground opens up and swallows people?

The Israelites believed in a universe structure that was common among the civilizations of the ancient Near East. This structure included three parts: a heavenly realm for the gods, an earthly realm for humans, and an underworld for the dead. The vocabulary of the Israelites’ cosmology is also similar to that found in the literature of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan.
The three tiers are reflected in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (; compare ; ).

[URLunfurl="true"]Ancient vs Modern Cosmology[/URL]

Cosmos. The first dimension of divine presence or manifestation is the cosmos or nature. Polytheistic cosmology views the cosmos as a cooperative process: the deities cooperate in creating and maintaining the world. In Egypt, the sun-god and his daily course across the sky and the underworld beneath the earth form the center of this processual cosmology.

https://evol-biol.ru/docs/docs/large_files/ancient.pdf#page=78


In this contribution I argue that הָאָרֶץ in Gen 1:1 must mean “the underworld.” After surveying evidence for rendering אֶרֶץ as “underworld” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and examining cognate evidence from Mesopotamia and Ugarit, I contend that, as a merism, reading הַשׁמַָיִם and הָאָרֶץ as “the heavens and the underworld” here makes better sense in terms of Israelite cosmology. I then illustrate how attention to the cosmological merism improves our understanding of the biblical creation and of several other passages beyond Genesis. Afterwards, I examine some historical factors that precluded later generations from understanding הָאָרֶץ in Gen 1:1 as the “underworld.” The article concludes with an excursus on Enuma Elish.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Scott B Noegel
Hebrew Studies 58, 119-144, 2017


Miracles in the OT which demonstrate an ancient cosmology
John R Roberts
This paper examines five miraculous events in the Old Testament which refer to an aspect of the biblical cosmos. It is shown that in each case it is an ancient view of a three-tiered cosmos of heaven, earth and under the earth that is depicted where the earth is fixed and the sun and moon course across the dome of heaven. In the manna from heaven miracle (Exo 16.14–35) the manna comes through dalṯê šāmayim ‘doors of heaven’(Psa 78.23), which shows that the psalmist must have thought there was a barrier between heaven and earth that the manna from heaven had to pass through. The miracle where Moses and the elders of Israel see the God of Israel on the mountain top and live (Exo 24.9–11) can only be a real experience in the context of local (Canaanite) belief that heaven is found at the tops of high mountains. The miracle where Korah and his followers go down to Sheol alive (Num 16.28–35) shows that Moses and the Israelites believed the world of the dead exists below the earth.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

We could find lots and lots of articles on the subject, but to say "The underworld beneath the ground is not a cosmological concept." Is a false statement. It's simply a matter of you not being familiar with the subject.

 

[Platte]

The Israelites believed in a universe structure that was common among the civilizations of the ancient Near East. This structure included three parts: a heavenly realm for the gods, an earthly realm for humans, and an underworld for the dead. The vocabulary of the Israelites’ cosmology is also similar to that found in the literature of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Canaan.
The three tiers are reflected in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (; compare ; ).

[URLunfurl="true"]Ancient vs Modern Cosmology[/URL]

Cosmos. The first dimension of divine presence or manifestation is the cosmos or nature. Polytheistic cosmology views the cosmos as a cooperative process: the deities cooperate in creating and maintaining the world. In Egypt, the sun-god and his daily course across the sky and the underworld beneath the earth form the center of this processual cosmology.

https://evol-biol.ru/docs/docs/large_files/ancient.pdf#page=78


In this contribution I argue that הָאָרֶץ in Gen 1:1 must mean “the underworld.” After surveying evidence for rendering אֶרֶץ as “underworld” elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and examining cognate evidence from Mesopotamia and Ugarit, I contend that, as a merism, reading הַשׁמַָיִם and הָאָרֶץ as “the heavens and the underworld” here makes better sense in terms of Israelite cosmology. I then illustrate how attention to the cosmological merism improves our understanding of the biblical creation and of several other passages beyond Genesis. Afterwards, I examine some historical factors that precluded later generations from understanding הָאָרֶץ in Gen 1:1 as the “underworld.” The article concludes with an excursus on Enuma Elish.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Scott B Noegel
Hebrew Studies 58, 119-144, 2017


Miracles in the OT which demonstrate an ancient cosmology
John R Roberts
This paper examines five miraculous events in the Old Testament which refer to an aspect of the biblical cosmos. It is shown that in each case it is an ancient view of a three-tiered cosmos of heaven, earth and under the earth that is depicted where the earth is fixed and the sun and moon course across the dome of heaven. In the manna from heaven miracle (Exo 16.14–35) the manna comes through dalṯê šāmayim ‘doors of heaven’(Psa 78.23), which shows that the psalmist must have thought there was a barrier between heaven and earth that the manna from heaven had to pass through. The miracle where Moses and the elders of Israel see the God of Israel on the mountain top and live (Exo 24.9–11) can only be a real experience in the context of local (Canaanite) belief that heaven is found at the tops of high mountains. The miracle where Korah and his followers go down to Sheol alive (Num 16.28–35) shows that Moses and the Israelites believed the world of the dead exists below the earth.

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

We could find lots and lots of articles on the subject, but to say "The underworld beneath the ground is not a cosmological concept." Is a false statement. It's simply a matter of you not being familiar with the subject.

There is no such thing as Biblical cosmology. Conflating the two with imagination is all you are doing.