Rick Rose writes:
The fact is that earth is modeled as a globe, as was the visible moon in the account.
That is not a fact. There is nothing about globes in the account, and the account has strong parallels to cosmologies of other cultures in the region, in which the earth is represented as being supported by pillars above waters beneath, and with a domed sky (usually a god, in the other polytheistic cultures) over the earth, and the heavens like an ocean above this.
The contrast with these other cultures in the Genesis account is, in my view, deliberate; and the intended lessons of Genesis are shown by the contrast between one creator God; and a pantheon of gods in the other cosmologies. That is, the teaching of Genesis is about one God, and it is expressed in the cosmological context of its readers and writers, as a carefully structured retelling of conventional contemporary cosmology within the new religious context.
Isa 40:21b,22
Have you not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.
This also is in the same ancient cosmological context. The translation of circle as "globe" is incorrect. This view is seen to be incorrect by the fact that it was other cultures (Greek) that first represented the Earth as a globe, while the depiction in Isaiah is a close match to the basic cosmology of the cultures surrounding the Hebrews (Egyptian, Babylonian, Sumerian) in which the sky was a dome (like a tent) over an essentially plate like circle of the earth. A tent does not surround a globe. It covers a circle.
In later times, long after Genesis and Isaiah was written, the globular earth was accepted by most in the early church; since Genesis is not a science text book and its lessons continue to work no matter what shape you think the earth might be. However, a strand of flat-earth thought with some of the early church fathers continues to show that the literal reading of the bible, unmodified by subsequent merely empirical discoveries about the Earth, is of a plate-like earth covered by a tent-like sky.
Rick Rose writes:
Sylas writes:
You are assuming that the globe is in existence; but that is the very point at issue.
Yes, it is a main point at issue. And it gives me great pleasure to present to you a view which you were not familiar with, as you so said you could not find anywhere in your theological studies where someone has equated Gen 1:1 with the creation of the cosmos as I have. Each one must determine this by his own belief system.
You are mistaken if you believe I have not previously heard of views such as you are expressing here. I have heard of such interpretations, and reject them as invalid impositions on the text. They are founded on an attempt to force fit the bible with a cosmology that was unknown to its writers, and this invariably results in notions in conflict with the plain wording of the bible, and distorting what the bible is attempting to convey.
However, be aware that I am not a believer. My aim in reading the bible is to understand it on its own terms; not to force a fit with my own views. I do not believe in the God described in Genesis.
To the contrary, the juxtaposition of the Genisis account and modern science credits both in this most astounding duet.
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun,
moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without
getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic. -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation?
I've seen this also, and it is breathtaking idiocy.
This "probability" is obtained by assuming that 10 factorial alternatives should be equally likely; but in fact it is much a conventional progression which would occur naturally to the ancients. The writer of the above nonsense effectively assumes (for example) that one should rank as equally likely that land animals were created before the dry land. The writer is insulting your intelligence; you may safely throw this book away as useless.
The other problem, of course, is that the given order is incorrect anyway. The writer puts an expanse of atmosphere in step four; but it belongs back with the early earth. The writer places land plants before the sun, which is incorrect. The Sun was plainly visible long before plants developed. In fact, Genesis explicitly mentions plants of two kinds; fruiting and seeding. This is actually important. Genesis is structured as three days of separations of chaos to reveal order. Light separated from dark; then sea separated from sky; then ocean separated from land. The next three days establish populations for the first three days. Heavenly bodies ruling light and dark; then creatures of sea and sky; then creatures of the land. But plants are part of the preparation of order prior to population with life; because the plants listed are the food for life which comes later. It makes good sense in the proper theological and cosmological context; and the essential feature is that all this is the work and command of one God.
However, as empirical science it is wrong, because the plants listed (fruits and grains) are comparatively recent; and actually developed since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Shouldn't matter; the bible is not intended as a science text book.
The order of flying creatures before land creatures is also a mismatch with empirical accounts. All flying animals developed from land dwellers; not sea dwellers. The notions that seasons began late in the order is incorrect also. Seasons came before life. And, as usual, the account deliberately distorts the clear formation of Sun and stars on the fourth day with a notion of "becoming visible" — a notion which is not in the bible, is inconsistent with the text, and which is only imposed because of this attempt to force fit with the wrong cosmological context. It fails in any case, because the Sun, moon and stars were certainly visible long before plants arrived on the land.
In the above statement you take oppisite positions. On the one hand you tenably acknowledge the watery deep. And, yes, modern science also acknowledges earth’s distant past likewise. How, then, is it that the Genesis writer could know so much so long ago, and not know about globes. You might as well try to convince your audience that a writer doesn’t know what a verb is. Perhaps your cosmological view of Genesis is not shared by it’s author.
There is no indication at all that the writer of Genesis had any special insights into empirical cosmology which were not based on the conventional cosmology of the time. It is not a science text book. The points where the insights of the writer stand out are not for science; but for a new theological perspective.
But I would like to continue verse by verse through the rest of the account as it bears on the thread. "Where does it say in Gen that the earth is six thousand years old." Of course only if you wish to oblige.
Shrug. Go for it. I may continue, or I may decide that I have already given an adequate criticism of the defects in the kind of forced amalgamation you propose with modern cosmology.
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2
