Clivedurdle

Flat earth

Useful site. There has also been a discussion about geocentric universes

here

and flat earthers here

and on walkaway there are some of the classic diagrams of the vaults

here

Sauron

I made it about halfway through this "paper" before I realized what had happened.

This author begins by chastising biblical literalists for creating impossibly contrived obligations on the genesis text. But her explanation is basically one that assumes the texts has some truth in it somewhere, at some level.

Armed with that preconceived notion (or sacred cow), she sets about to create an interpretory framework that relied heavily upon poetic images and implied parallels. So heavily, in fact, that the argument quickly becomes cumbersome, resembling far eastern mysticism or an engineering specification.

Frankly, I don't see where her position is an improvement, except in the fact that she sees no conflict between genesis and modern cosmology. But to get to that point, she has to plasticize genesis badly. In an effort to get rid of the embarrassment of literal creationism, she substitutes a multi-layered model full of allegories. But this assumes that the genesis authors picked and chose their words with an exacting precision that resembles similar creationist arguments.

Sauron

Yes, they were; it's just that simple. The explanation is as I stated: if they were discussing the origin of the universe, that is the definition of cosmology.

So were the genesis authors doing that? Were they, in fact, discussing the creation of the universe?

Yes, they were. That was, in fact, the point of genesis: to explain how things were created. End of argument.

Now were they comments strictly scientific? No. But they were, in fact, describing the origins of the universe. And in a broad manner, genesis provides testable, verifiable content/claims. So there is a basis for cosmology here.

Period, and wrong.

Which doesn't inform this discussion.

Steven Carr

Why did non-Christian Greeks choose the same word for Heaven as they did for sky?

And why did Christians then decide to also use the current word the Greeks used for Heaven, knowing as they did, that at that time the word bore no Christian connotations as a realm distinct from somewhere above us?

infidelguy

I still don't believe you read the entire thing at that time. But I apologize for making assumptions. Luckily for me however, I have talked to many people that speak Hebrew fluently, and they agree with many of my claims. I'm beginning to wonder if I know you. I've seen someone make a similar claim a few years ago on an apologetics website. Anyway.. I think I can discuss etymology and modern word usage and need not be an expert. If I'm wrong, simply prove your case,

I concede that this is a possibility, however.. it's not as clear as you claim and it still doesn't detract from the overall ancient Biblical cosmological view. Many YEC's for instance still accept a pre-flood reservoir. If this is poetry, makes me wonder how much else in the Bible is just poetry. It's very convenient! Anything that I don't agree with in a literal sense, I can male allegory, poetry, metaphor etc. I wonder why they didn't use the Hebrew word for cloud(s) instead. After all, it is the Bible that says that the windows of Heaven opened up. The Hebrew word for window in this case is: 'arubbah, which is the " feminine participle passive of ''arab' (693) (as if for lurking); a lattice; (by implication) a window, dove-cot (because of the pigeon-holes), chimney (with its apertures for smoke), sluice (with openings for water):--chimney, window." Sounds like water pouring down from holes in the firmament to me. But's oops, since we know that simply cannot be the case.. it must be poetry. Example: "It's so obvious, the Adam & Eve story was simply a poetic way to express how when people disobey God, bad things can happen." See?

Agreed... but since we know they so obviously didn't know the truth about their world/Universe, the analogy doesn't hold much weight. Yes.. we do use those terms today.. and those terms are derived from a period in which man didn't know any better about our solar system. We have ample knowledge that they used those terms in a literal fashion. This is irrefutable.

I don't know how you got that. The verse in Psalms 148:4 is, “Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens.� Too bad the Bible never mentions what "heavens of heavens" are. Although we have a rough idea here:
"Neh 9:6 Thou, [even] thou, [art] LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all [things] that [are] therein, the seas, and all that [is] therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee." Elsewhere in the Bible host is used to reference the stars and heavenly bodies. Now, if the Biblical writers knew that the stars are in space.. are these waters in space too? Quite a few Christian websites try to defend this idea... but that would mean, of course, that the waters were far beyond the clouds! But anyway.. that's tryng to read modern cosmology into the text, so we won't go there, yet.

Literally, that is what is means. I guess what I meant to say is that it seemed you brought up the challenge as to "Kingdom of Heaven" as NOT referencing the sky. It is possible that by the time of Jesus[sic], the NT writers may have forgotten, or not even considered the original meaning and used "Kingdom (Grk: basileia) of Heaven" in a traidtional colloquial sense. However, one would think that if it was other-wordly.. they (under God's divine influence), could have expressed adequately so.. maybe something like, "Other-wordly Holy Place" or something. But no.. they all referenced the visible sky. Side Fact: I have a friend in Israel and he tells me that on weather reports over there, they still refer to the Sky as Shamayim. So yes.. it is true that traditional usage will remain, even though we know better. However, if Heaven is NOT up there.. the ancients could have articulated themselves as such. Now, you say they believed in more than one Heaven? or an other-wordly Heaven? Now.. where again is this 'Invisible Heaven' mentioned in the Bible?

Unsure.. what you mean here and how you could deduce such a thing. Some Christian essays I have read.. claim a 3 tiered cosmogony.. others, seven. Maybe you should tell me what you mean by "two-tiered". Tell me what are those tiers.

Okay.. can you please provide your evidences of these layered cosmogenies. Thanks. A few quotes will do.. I assume you'll use the Bible?

Surely you see he added modern terminologies and contexts that are NOT provided in the Bible. Again, where is this "invisible Heaven" mentioned? I have done lots of searches and cannot find it.. other than people, like you, claiming it exists. The Bible doesn't mention an invisible heaven. Maybe there are other terms.. I'll concede this. Help me find it. I am not beyond change.

I think you did this, with your invisible heaven idea and multi-tiered heavens. Like I said.. I may be wrong. Just show me the money.

I'm always rethinking and changing my ideas when it comes to research such as this.. which is why I opened the floor to criticism. Unlike many religions.


It still seems, thus far, to make more sense in light of ancient contemporary stories such as the Enuma Elish.

I found something odd here: Psa 104:3 "Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:" - Apparently God has some chambers in the waters and uses the clouds as his chariot. Interesting that the waters and clouds are used in the same sentence. Man, the word of God is just damned inconsistent.

Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. - Sounds like God is making clouds out of the waters.. poetically I must add.. while at the same time.. not confusing meanings. They used clouds for clouds and waters for waters.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven. - God's walking on the circle of the Earth? Sounds like the firmamentum again.

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. - Hmm.. now.. which Heaven is this passage talking about? Are there clouds in this spiritual heaven? How do we know in the Old testment when God is talking about the sky versus the "real" Heaven where the Angels are chilling?

Check out this wacky poetry:

"Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling [fig] from the fig tree."

I understand your point about the clouds and I can see that as a possibly. However, without evidence, we are stuck in a stalement of interpretation.

What do you think the firmament is according to the Bible?

infidelguy

Thanks for the links Clive. It's amazing that the earliest info we have about what they believed mirror much of what CJD is arguing against.

I have often wondered why didn't Jesus simply disappear into Heaven, since it isn't in the Sky? or.. how did the Prophet Elijah get swept up into Heaven by a Tornado?.. if Heaven isn't up there.

The drama smacks of myth making.

Sauron

Then a couple of items tumble out of this statement:

1. your belief is that genesis was written during the "Canaanite period" - whether one defines that as:

a. the period after the Hebrews arrived at Canaan (literalist view); or
b. the period when the Hebrews became "self aware" as a people and were striving to differentiate themselves from among the other Canaanites besides themselves, in the milieu where they were all co-located (Finkelstein et. al.)

That contradicts some of the literalist position(s) that genesis would have been much older than the Canaanite period. Are you comfortable with that?

2. If the Hebrews had already concluded that Baal fell into the category of a "pretender" to the throne and was not, in fact, the real McDeal, then why would any such polemic be necessary? The Hebrews were already convinced.

This confuses me.

You say that it provides a creational theology for "keeping the Sabbath".

Yes, I understand that the point of this creational theology was to explain why keeping the sabbath was so important. But even if that were the goal of genesis, that does not mean that the original authors meant for the audience to ignore the finer details of creation events that they presented in the text. The question is one of their intent and motivation; you seem to think that they were merely trying to give a theological history and explanation for the sabbath. The evidence suggests that there was more afoot than that, especially since the creationism of genesis extends out to the flood of Noah, and beyond -- where no such sabbath concern is present.

Another thing that bothers me about your explanation: why all the details about what was created upon what day? Why the careful enumeration of each day's events? Why the focus on trying to account for every miraculous thing (sun, moon, stars, living things, etc.) and not leave anything out? In other words, if a simple creational theology was all that the authors of genesis wanted, then they went far overboard in their attention to detail.

Clivedurdle

There is a new agey type book I have forgotten the name and author of that discusses Enoch in detail about this and the megalithic yard. It proposes a recent meteor strike - similar to Schumacher Levi - for our world wide flood myths and discusses what early people knew about the heavens. We quickly get into New Grange and Stonehenge as computer areas though.

Lunawalk

great article. very informative . the bible is an product of it times. I have a couple questions though Did the ancients believe that the sun gave heat as well as light? with the sun and moon being within the firmament life on earth would not be possible. my other question In the Genesis flood god sends an wind to dry the waters of the flood. Did they go back to the waters above the firmament? Thanks

GakuseiDon

From the 2nd century CE, so not quite "the ancients". According to Tatian in his "Address to the Greeks":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html