Does the Bible teach ancient solid-dome cosmology?

[JimmieD]

And you also say it's beside the point? In what sense is the historicity of Genesis beside the point?

Because the author's point is the election of Israel as God's people. I've concluded this by reading Genesis from beginning to end and tracing the themes and emphasis in the book.

Are you saying it may or may not have happened, and either way it doesn't matter? If so, I would be curios if you feel the same way about the Gospels. If the first Adam didn't exist, maybe the last Adam is a metaphor as well. That seems to be where you're going with this.

I'm saying the author's intent in Genesis is explaining why God elected Israel as his people. This is the logic of the narrative. Do you deny this is the intent?

The author's beliefs? The author is the Holy Spirit?

I'm pretty sure a human wrote this down, unless you think not?

I'm amazed at how little faith modern christians have in the Bible. If the Holy Spirit is not smart enough to get the history and order of events correct, then how do you know He got the theology right?

I'm not the one telling the Holy Spirit what he ought to do or not do and how he ought or ought not to communicate. I'm simply reading in context and considering what the author intended to communicate....unless you think author's intent is irrelevant? And why do you have to resort to personal attacks? That's usually a sure sign of a failed argument.

 

[Calminian]

Because the author's point is the election of Israel as God's people. I've concluded this by reading Genesis from beginning to end and tracing the themes and emphasis in the book.



I'm saying the author's intent in Genesis is explaining why God elected Israel as his people. This is the logic of the narrative. Do you deny this is the intent?



I'm pretty sure a human wrote this down, unless you think not?



I'm not the one telling the Holy Spirit what he ought to do or not do and how he ought or ought not to communicate. I'm simply reading in context and considering what the author intended to communicate....unless you think author's intent is irrelevant? And why do you have to resort to personal attacks? That's usually a sure sign of a failed argument.

I still don't know why you've come to the conclusion that the intent of a writing makes it fiction. Historians have varying intents for writing things down. This in and of itself doesn't affect the accuracy of their historical claims.

The Gettysburg Address, for instance, had a specific purpose, but also gave some history. Does that mean that the history was incorrect?

And I'm not here making a case for the accuracy of the history of Genesis (though I do think it's accurate). I'm just trying to figure why you think the purpose of the book of Genesis automatically means its history is not accurate. It's a very strange claim.

 

[oldthennew]

if you turn Genesis up-side-down,
all scripture is 'over-turned'.....

 

[Calminian]

And what happened to Cycel? Thought he was going to defend his view.

 

[JimmieD]

I still don't know why you've come to the conclusion that the intent of a writing makes it fiction.

Did I say it was fiction? If we're going to categorize it, I would call it a polemics.

Historians have varying intents for writing things down. This in and of itself doesn't affect the accuracy of their historical claims.

The Gettysburg Address, for instance, had a specific purpose, but also gave some history. Does that mean that the history was incorrect?

And I'm not here making a case for the accuracy of the history of Genesis (though I do think it's accurate). I'm just trying to figure why you think the purpose of the book of Genesis automatically means its history is not accurate. It's a very strange claim.

The rest of this isn't addressing what I'm saying. Whether or not it's historically accurate is beside the point - which is explaining why God elected Israel with the explanation being that everyone else had failed at being fruitful multiplying filling the earth and ruling it, as humans were intended to do/be. It doesn't matter to me if you think it's historically accurate or not since it's not the point. Everyone else failed to live up to humanity's purpose, so God called Israel to do it.

Psalm53:2 God looks down from heavenat the human race,[SUP]
[/SUP]to see if there is anyone who is wiseand seeks God.[SUP]
[/SUP]53:3 Everyone rejects God;
they are all morally corrupt.
None of them does what is right
not even one!

 

[Calminian]

Did I say it was fiction? If we're going to categorize it, I would call it a polemics.

No, you're saying it doesn't matter if it's fiction. I'm just wondering why? Why would God tell us a story about origins if it wasn't true. What impact would telling us a lie have?

The rest of this isn't addressing what I'm saying. Whether or not it's historically accurate is beside the point - which is explaining why God elected Israel with the explanation being that everyone else had failed at being fruitful multiplying filling the earth and ruling it, as humans were intended to do/be.

Wow, this is getting more confusing by the minute. So your saying that men, even after Babel, failed to multiply on the earth? And so God called Israel to do so, but then isolated them in a particular land? And that's the real point?? It's almost like we're reading different accounts.

It doesn't matter to me if you think it's historically accurate or not since it's not the point. Everyone else failed to live up to humanity's purpose, so God called Israel to do it. ...

I'm pretty sure even Moses would disagree that Israel fulfilled this desire of God to live up to their potential. In fact, the only thing the gentiles seemed to do right is multiply over the face of the earth.

Dazed and confused by your comments.

Grace and peace.

 

[CRC]

11 The words of the wise are like oxgoads, and their collected sayings are like firmly embedded nails; they have been given from one shepherd. 12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.
13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad. Ecclesiastes 12:11 -14

 

[Cycel]

Keep in mind, Cycel is not a Christian.

I don't think this has a bearing on my approach. What I will do here is take scripture literally.

Many proponents of this view do claim to be Christians, and are, as you say, throwing inerrancy overboard (though they claim otherwise).

Do they claim otherwise?

I believe that the Genesis creation account is accurately portraying cosmology as it was then understood. The error of those who proclaim inerrancy is that they ignore what scripture is saying and attempt to come up with (preposterous) ideas that they hope will align mythology with science. I do believe the creation account, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Flood are mythological tales. I do think real history is scattered though out the Bible, but this is not it.

Cycel will be coming at this from the viewpoint that the Bible is not a reliable document, and certainly not the Word of God.

I think Genesis reliably portrays a cosmological view that was accepted at that time in history. What I see as inaccurate is the inadequate way that overly zealous literalists want to make the creation account conform to a modern understanding of cosmology. I hope no one is offended, but this is how I see the matter.

 

[Cycel]

The first thing I want to say about the Genesis creation account is that I am quite convinced that no claim is made that God created the waters.

“In the Beginning of Creation, when God made heaven and earth (a), the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept (b) over the surface of the waters.”

(a) Or ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’

(b) Or ‘and the spirit of God hovering.’ (NEB)

The opening line is the introduction. A great void and a dark abyss holds an immense body of water that pre-existed the creation of the world. This make sense, I suppose, for surely Yahweh did not exist in a black emptiness for eons before he deciding to make planet.

I want to talk about this body of water. It does not say God created the waters. The author tells us that the first act of creation was Light.

“God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light; and God saw that it was good, and he separated light from darkness. He called the light day, and the darkness night. So evening came, and morning came, the first day.” (NEB)

There is no mention of God creating the waters. The next act is the gathering of the waters into one place. It really looks as though they pre-existed the creation of the world. The author of the text simply skips right over the creation of water. This does become important later on, but in the mean time I’d be interested in understanding how any of you view the waters. For example, how do you explain a large body of water that pre-exists the Sun. It is apparently hanging in space and does not freeze solid. How do you understand this?

 

[TaylorTG]

Read the creation account carefully and you will see that this is what it is saying. Support is provided in other areas of scripture. The sky is solid to hold back the water above. Job spells it out very plainly. Essentially the biblical account of the the cosmos is pretty much identical the the Babylonian cosmology. This doesn't disprove God, but it proves that the Genesis creation account is not an historical record.

The Ancients believed that the Earth was a dome, yes. This shouldn't disprove the truths of Genesis, as Scripture's primary focus is not Science, but Mortality.

Use caution when eyeing the bible from a scientific point of view. The inspired authors probably didn't realize basic truths we know today, like the Earth revolving around the sun. They write what they see. As long as the fundamental aspects about God, sin, human nature, and the relationship between God and man is clear, then the bible does its job.

 

[Cycel]

The Ancients believed that the Earth was a dome, yes. This shouldn't disprove the truths of Genesis, as Scripture's primary focus is not Science, but Mortality.

So, do you accept that the cosmology portrayed in Genesis may be presenting a picture of earth that is quite different from the views of modern science?

I am not trying to discount God here. I only wish to point out than our contemporary astronomers really do know what they are talking about. My objection is that those who read Genesis literally use it to reject much within modern science.

 

[Cycel]

Attached is an image of the way I think the Hebrews understood the world.

 

[TaylorTG]

So, do you accept that the cosmology portrayed in Genesis may be presenting a picture of earth that is quite different from the views of modern science?

I am not trying to discount God here. I only wish to point out than our contemporary astronomers really do know what they are talking about. My objection is that those who read Genesis literally use it to reject much within modern science.

The 2nd paragraph of my post explains my reasoning in the first paragraph.


I agree with Paul Seely and Denis Lamoureux. The bible is a historical book written from a spiritual perspective, but even though it deals with history, history is not what the readers should focus on. The reader needs to focus on the actual salvation history which reveals theological truths.

The same logic applies with using science to disprove Scripture to be false. Scripture isn't made to teach science, but mortality. Hence why using science to disprove biblical truths won't work.

When dealing with mortality and theology, the bible is infallible. When dealing with science and history, the bible is fallible, or can be open to error.

 

[Calminian]

Attached is an image of the way I think the Hebrews understood the world.

Cycel, please explain why you believe this. So far you haven't touched on how you got there, just that you believe it. You say the waters were not created, which I don't see, but nevertheless, no case has been made yet. Looking forward to hearing it.

 

[Calminian]

...When dealing with mortality and theology, the bible is infallible. When dealing with science and history, the bible is fallible, or can be open to error.

But this begs the question. If God got the science and history wrong, how do you know He got the theology right?

And Taylor, what has convinced you the Bible is in scientific error? What do you think Genesis falsely teaches?

 

[TaylorTG]

But this begs the question. If God got the science and history wrong, how do you know He got the theology right?

And Taylor, what has convinced you the Bible is in scientific error? What do you think Genesis falsely teaches?

We shouldn't expect the inspired authors to teach us science. The bible is like a diary: the writers write as they would normally speak, and they would undoubtedly insert their own belief systems into the text.

The bible is very similar to the Iliad in terms of how it should be read. When reading, don't bring your 21th century opinions into the text. Dive into the biblical times and see everything from the author's eyes.


Even during the times of Moses, the Israelites were unaware of the existence of Heaven and Hell. They and everyone else believed in the afterlife known as Sheol, which was a dark, emotionless void where both the righteous and the unrighteous end up after they die.

When Christ came down to Earth, the existence of Sheol was nullified by the revelations of Heaven and Hell, or eternal life and eternal death.


As Cycel pointed out, the Earth is not a dome, and Heaven is not directly above the Earth. This is an outdated scientific view that is recorded in Scripture, but does not at all contradict the wholeness of scripture, because scripture was never meant to teach us science, but salvation.

 

[JimmieD]

No, you're saying it doesn't matter if it's fiction.

I'm saying it's polemic, not fiction. I think you've misidentified the genre.

Wow, this is getting more confusing by the minute. So your saying that men, even after Babel, failed to multiply on the earth? And so God called Israel to do so, but then isolated them in a particular land? And that's the real point?? It's almost like we're reading different accounts.

When I read Genesis from beginning to end, that's what I'm seeing. Over half of Genesis is about Israel in some way (from Abraham to the descent into Egypt). That should clue us in that the point of the book is about Israel, not modern physics. Do you disagree with this?

I'm pretty sure even Moses would disagree that Israel fulfilled this desire of God to live up to their potential.

Eventually, yes.

 

[JesusIsAll]

I believe that the Genesis creation account is accurately portraying cosmology as it was then understood. The error of those who proclaim inerrancy is that they ignore what scripture is saying and attempt to come up with (preposterous) ideas that they hope will align mythology with science. I do believe the creation account, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Flood are mythological tales. I do think real history is scattered though out the Bible, but this is not it.

Beyond scripture stating it's inspired by God, God is the Creator of the universe, right? Isn't the Creator of the universe competent to write an accurate book?

 

[Calminian]

We shouldn't expect the inspired authors to teach us science. The bible is like a diary: the writers write as they would normally speak, and they would undoubtedly insert their own belief systems into the text.

The bible is very similar to the Iliad in terms of how it should be read. When reading, don't bring your 21th century opinions into the text. Dive into the biblical times and see everything from the author's eyes.

If it's not inspired, yes, and then we would expect everything to be fallible, including the theology.

Even during the times of Moses, the Israelites were unaware of the existence of Heaven and Hell.....

Heaven, shamayim, is mentioned through out the book of Genesis as well as the Torah. Why would you believe the Israelites during Moses' time were ignorant of their own history and the history recored by the ancestors which included an account of the creation of the heavens?

As Cycel pointed out, the Earth is not a dome, and Heaven is not directly above the Earth......

Agreed. But until this point you've not showed me one passage that affirms this view, and that's the point I'm trying to make to you. The ancients believed in a solid dome cosmology, but it's strangely missing from the book of Genesis.

So my challenge to you and Cycel is very simple. Show me in Genesis where this cosmology is taught or even mentioned. If you can do that your case is made. If you can't, you're actually admitting that Genesis might be historically and scientifically accurate. Am I correct?

 

[Calminian]

I'm saying it's polemic, not fiction. I think you've misidentified the genre.



When I read Genesis from beginning to end, that's what I'm seeing. Over half of Genesis is about Israel in some way (from Abraham to the descent into Egypt). That should clue us in that the point of the book is about Israel, not modern physics. Do you disagree with this?

JimmieD, with all due respect, you're backpedaling. You made the claim that God raised up Israel because the rest of the nations were not spreading out over the earth. This is false. After Babel, the nations did spread over the earth. Israel, on the other hand, did not. This has nothing to do with the raising up of Israel.

It sounds to me like you're not familiar with the basic story of Genesis. Your understanding of the "purpose" of the book of Genesis, at this point, is wrong. Yes, it's true more than half the book is about Abraham and his descendants (much more than half in fact). This is no way proves that the pre-abrahamic history is false. The reasoning makes no sense at all, from a religious or non-religious perspective.

Yes, much of the story is polemic, and that works to my favor, because I maintain that Genesis contradicts ANE cosmology, and ANE history, and ANE theology. Polemic doesn't mean the story is also false. If I'm wrong, and the history and cosmology are false, show me. It's a very simple challenge.