infidelguy

Dr. Robert Price and I have developed an essay which provides a pretty good analysis (if I say so myself) of ancient perspectives of the Universe. Of course with a large portion dealing primarily with Biblical cosmology.

Summary: It appears to me that Biblical Cosmology is a rehash of earlier creation stories and describes the "Heaven(s)" in very much a similar vein to the ancients preceding the Bible as well as their contemporaries.

In this essay we reference the works of J.Edward Wright, Edward T. Babinski, Stephen Meyers and also include the results of our own research.

This work is a recreation of my research work that I published a few years ago. Thanks to Bob for taking the time to help me rewrite my work and include the works of others... of whom have already published on this subject long before I did. http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm

Introduction Excerpt: I am posting rebuttals at the tail-end of the essay and replying to them. Errors of course will be acknowledged and fixed.

Comments, praises and criticisms are most welcome.

Thanks.

--

In reason,

Reggie Finley
The Infidel Guy
http://www.infidelguy.com

Aspirin99

Wow. That's an excellent collect of information on the topic. Nicely done. I still remember as a Christian teenager being told that the Flood was the result of windows in the firmament being opened, and the storehouse of water dumped from the firmament. This, apparently was also keeping harmful radiation from killing everyone, because afterward, they no longer lived so long. In retrospect, the amount of water needed would have done more than filter the sun rays. It would have blocked most light entirely. Just when I think, How could people believe that crap, I remember that they still believe similar nonsense.

CJD

One quick quibble, though I must warn you I am no 'literalist' as you define it — however authoritative I deem the texts that make up the Scriptures (which is very much so).

You wrote (under "In Heaven's Name"): "All the ancients, like many alive today, spoke of 'heaven' and meant 'the sky.' The Bible even uses the same words for both, interchangeably."

So far so good.

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is the same as 'the kingdom of the sky.'�

Not so good. Not in every circumstance does 'heaven' simply mean 'sky.' Heaven very often means that place or abode of god, namely, for the Israelite, YHWH and his court. The cosmogony of the Bible is clearly two-tiered, with the lower (earth) being a blueprint of the archetype (heaven). Mostly it is the case that "heavens and earth" mean simply "sky and earth"; but not in every case.

I realize this directly opposes what you have written in the paragraph I ripped this quote from, but I think you have seriously oversimplified the cosmogony alluded to in various portions of the ancient texts. For the ancients, god's abode was not simply "up" there (in the locale sense), but "up" there in the spatial sense, including that which is not immediately visible. The literary devices used to accentuate both time and space in Genesis 1, for example, do not allow such an interpretation (either of so-called "literalists" or skeptics who adopt that view wishing to debunk something).

It might be that the ancients who took part in writing Genesis did think the visible heavens and earth had a solid ceiling, but this does not undermine the notion that they at the same time thought their visible heaven was a replica of that invisible one. Moreover, the "waters" above the earth are simply clouds, and the authors (as ancients authors typically do) simply described things the way they saw them with their naked eyes. Who really cares if they were mistaken about scientific cosmology? They don't purport to be saying anything about that in any portion of the pertinent texts anyway (as literalists — both creationists and skeptics — like to think).

You might at least want to take this argument into account.

Best,

CJD

Sauron

I suspect not. There was a perfectly acceptable Hebrew word for cloud, Strong's 06051, which they could have used. Had that been their actual desire, I mean.

I suspect, rather, that the bible writers were affected by "sympathetic magic": because the waters of the ocean are bright blue, and because water falls down from the sky, then obviously the blue ceiling above us must also be composed of water.

Yes, they were. In Genesis 1 they are describing the cosmology of the universe. If the question is "did the bible writers ever discuss cosmology", then you can't get much more on target than the first chapter of Genesis.

infidelguy

I don't think you read the article in it's entirety. What you are rebutting has been addressed.

But let me help you here:

The Hebrew word for cloud is `anan. When referring to clouds, they could have easily used this term when they pleased, in some cases they do. Of course they knew clouds brought water. But this isn't the waters talked about in the examples we gave. In Psalms 148:4 “Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens.� Houston, wir haben ein problem. Notice the waters above the Heavens, plural. And let's not forget about those floodgates in heaven that have to be open and shut.

You mentioned the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. This isn't even seen until the New Testament. There was plenty of time since the Old and the New to change the Heaven concept a bit (or has it changed?). We shall see. One thing you may not know is that Heaven is Ouranos in Greek. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek early on. Ouranos, as the essay points out, is the firmament or Heaven. Both, up there in the sky.

You must ask yourself.. what is the firmament then.. and how does it keep the high and low waters apart? In light of ancient cosmology, it makes perfect sense.

I went to that link. Notice that she makes tons of claims with not much evidence. She has tons of opinions, but zero evidence. That's because she is trying to make it all work in light evidence to the contrary. The word "invisible heaven" doesn't even exist in the bible. She made it up! She is using her traditional beliefs as a reference... not historical facts.

I'll let others here read the same article. There really isn't much substance to her claims in anyway which would affect the entirety of the essay.

Read the entire article please.

Lastly, http://www.blueletterbible.org. Check out this link. Do a search for invisible, or unseen. Not very much there. She is guilty of reading modern contexts into the ancient view.

Just my two cents.

Isa 14:14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Dan 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven..."

Nah 1:3 The LORD [is] slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit [the wicked]: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds [are] the dust of his feet.

Psa 78:23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,
Psa 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.

It just goes on and on.

CJD

No, they weren't; and it's just that simple. Not a one purports to tell us something scientifically (in the modern sense) about the universe. The first chapter of Genesis is about how Israel's god, YHWH, is also the creator god. It is a theological and literary construct, not a cosmological treatise. Period.

Also, don't forget about 'ed.

CJD

Sarpedon

Then why did Jesus "ascend" to heaven. The language is quite clear that he rose or went up. Why was god worried about the tower of Babel, if heaven wasn't literally above the earth? And in Revelation, it says something like this: "the firmament will roll back like a curtain, and people will be able to look up and see angels looking down." Clearly, the author implies that heaven is above the earth, close enough that people could see an angel, which is presumably a few times bigger than a person, since in the OT they mated with human women to produce giants.

I think you are wrongly projecting modern ideas into primitive people. It is plainly evident from early artwork that people thought that the universe was self contained and finite, with heaven above the earth and hell below. Hell was 'obviously' beneath the earth, they could see geysers, smell the sulfur, and see the occasional volcanic eruption. To them, Hell was the most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon. What use would a metaphor be in this instance? And why not believe that heaven is above the earth? The king sits on a platform, above all his subjects. The altar is placed above the other parts of the temple. Surely the King of the Earth would also be above the earth. The vast beauty of the sky, and the terror of the lightning bolt and thunder are evidence enough for the sky to be the abode of God.

So, I assert that the people living at the time the bible was writ thought that it was literally true that heaven and hell were above and below the earth. they had no concept of other dimensions, other planets, or other planes of being. This is clear in their artwork, and the very LITERAL and straightforward way they wrote their scriptures. If they had meant it all as a metaphor, why not write in a way that made it clear? You always knew when Jesus was making a metaphor, because of his storytelling technique. There's no such indication in the old testemant, or even in the new, when they are describing certain things, such as the location of heaven. When I compare it to other, more mystical writings, I am struck with how matter-of-factly the bible is written.

Which is more likely; that a book written at a certain time, which contains certain ideas which were the commonly held beliefs of the period, is actually a vast metaphor that can only be puzzled out by people living literally thousands of years later? Or, that the book is exactly what it seems, the literal product of the society that created it, filled with the ideas of that time, some of which have now been discredited?

infidelguy

No one claimed it was science. This is what they thought, period. Are you suggesting they thought something else? How do you know this? What was it? if Genesis isn't explaining the creation of Universe, Earth and Man, what is it doing then?

CJD

I know at times it might seem I need help, but don't presume to help with the elementary basics, unless your a degreed professional, fluent in both the pertinent languages and sociological contours of the ANE.

It is precisely the waters spoken of Gen. 1:6. The writer is clearly and poetically describing how the waters (rivers and seas) are being separated from the waters above (rain clouds). Keep in mind that many of us still say things like "the sunset" or "the sunrise." We know this isn't literally the case (unlike the ancients, most probably), but we are using descriptors of how things look from the earth. Such is the case in many instances throughtout the TNK.

Quoting Ps. 148, by the way, is merely circular in this regard. It means the same thing as Gen. 1:6 — the way I think it is to be understood — "praise him ye rain clouds in the sky."

I thought you mentioned kingdom of heaven? That it was the same as the kingdom of the sky?

Not only do I know it, but I can read it off the page, thank you very much.

Unless of course the meaning of the text implies the two-tiered cosmogony is being talked about, in which case "heaven" refers to the "dwelling place of the Most High."

I'm not arguing against a tin-hard sky; I'm arguing that ancient Israelites, according to thier ancient writings, believed in a two-tiered cosmogony. I wrote previously: "It might be that the ancients who took part in writing Genesis did think the visible heavens and earth had a solid ceiling, but this does not undermine the notion that they at the same time thought their visible heaven was a replica of that invisible one."

Please. The author is doing textual criticism, no more than you have attempted to do.

That much is true, except maybe you might be left with little more uncertainty with some of the interpretations you've forced upon the biblical texts. You ought to rethink your use of said texts to see if there really is much of a tension between "her" (she is a he) exegesis and yours.

CJD

CJD

I have to run for now, but the short answer is this:

It served as a polemic against Baal and any other Canaanite god who the Israelites would have deemed pretenders to the throne. Baal doesn't bring the rain (=grain=life); rather, YHWH does. Moreover, it provides a creational theology for keeping the Sabbath (the 7th day served as the literary pinnacle in the six day framework).

CJD