A Hebrew Cosmology (Fair Use)
The Cosmos as Seen by the Ancients:
Armstrongism in Contention with the Cosmology of Genesis
By Scout
“Why haven't scientists compared the record of Genesis with the facts of geology? NEVER has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of scientific information is pouring down upon specialist and layman alike. No one is able to keep up with the torrent of new knowledge. But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge? Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of new ignorance new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable clothes of Scientific Knowledge?” - Herman L. Hoeh, “Genesis vs. Geology,” Plain Truth Magazine, July 1966.
When I was a kid, if found the first chapter of Genesis to be very confusing. The discussion it contained of “waters” and “firmaments” seemed odd. This is because the Ancient Cosmological Model (ACM) used by the author of the first chapter of Genesis does not comport with what we know of the Cosmos today. It is, rather, an ancient model that had currency in the Middle East at the time of the composition of Genesis. A version of this same model entered the Greco-Roman world. Herman Hoeh’s anti-science statement above is not an apologetic for this scriptural ACM. Rather, in his comprehensive article on Genesis, cited, he provides an alternative explanation for the events of Genesis. Hoeh omits any reference to the ACM. Why the omission? We can only conjecture on this. Since Hoeh overlooks the critical data concerning ACM, his exegesis is then rendered incomplete and inaccurate.
This essay will make the case that Genesis uses the ACM. Hoeh did not admit this fact or address it that I can find in my research. And how does the use of the ACM affect the validity of the Bible?
The Ancient Cosmological Model
In ancient Semitic cosmology, the Cosmos looked a lot different than it does to us. They believed in a Three Story Universe: Heaven, Earth and the Underworld. We have the modern science of astronomy and they, back then, did not. They envisioned the sky as a ceiling of solid material. Apparently, they thought it was transparent because they believed that the ceiling (firmament) held back water and the water is what made the sky blue. They also believed there were windows or floodgates in this ceiling that permitted water to come down out of the sky. They also believed that the ceiling was not that far away, hence, the attempt to reach it by building a tower. And above the vault of heaven, above the waters, was where the Throne of God was located.
So, to these ancient people, the Universe was shaped like a big plate with a bowl inverted over the top of it. The plate was the Middle Story or the earth. The bowl was the Top Story which is the vault of heaven and beneath the plate was the Bottom Story or the underworld which also held water. And there was empirical evidence that supported this view. The ancients could see the circle of the horizon. Rain fell out of the sky. And if you dug into the ground deep enough you found water. This ACM is what was described in the Book of Genesis.
In Source Criticism, the description in Genesis 1 is attributed to the Priesthood. I think they were the educated class in ancient Israel. At its origin this concept may have been provided by Moses and only curated by the Priesthood. No doubt, Moses, educated in Egypt, was familiar with the ACM. So, it is not surprising that their view of Genesis was pretty much what was found broadly in the Middle East.
An interesting statement of this history is found in the following video by The Bible Project:
Hoeh’s Omission
Herman Hoeh posited a different idea entirely about Genesis 1. This was the idea that the creation took place billions of years before Genesis 1 and then a great destruction occurred. And the “Creation Week” was not that at all. In the Hoeh cosmogony, it was more of a “Housekeeping Week.” It was a clearing of the chaotic environment surrounding the earth, already created, to some depth in space. While this theory can be made to fit some parts of Genesis 1, what Hoeh does not do in his theory is account for all the Genesis data. We have the following on the Second Day:
“And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’ And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear’: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good. (KJV, Genesis 1:6-9).”
First, this is a creation activity not a housekeeping activity. Next, this description from the KJV corresponds to the ACM. In this model, God creates heaven and this separates two great oceans. One in the Top Story and one in the Middle Story. Then God exposes land in the Middle Story by concentrating the waters in certain locations. At other places in scripture, we find “The Pillars of the Earth” and “The Fountain of the Deep” that also fit with the ACM.
But the publications of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) nowhere address this important data in Genesis 1:6-9 that I have been able to find. The term “firmament” does not appear often in WCG publications and it does not appear in Hoeh’s article cited above at all. Hoeh writes of the clearing of the Earth and its celestial environment but does not write of the direct connection of Genesis to the ACM. He is in contention with scripture but it is subtle rather than explicit. He simply does not exegete Genesis 1:6-9. My guess is that Hoeh knew that the ACM was an ancient theory about the organization of the Cosmos and that it did not agree with modern scientific findings. There is no great ocean of water being contained behind the vault of heaven. The earth is not a disc and the sky a half-dome. And the world does not float on the waters of the Great Deep. But, perhaps, it was easier to let sleeping dogs lie.
The Impact on the Validity of the Bible
One reason Hoeh may have ignored a direct reference to the ACM is that it connects the Bible to a model of the Cosmos that ancient peoples believed in but which science has demonstrated to be incorrect. In Genesis 1:1 there is even a description that corresponds to the Primordial Chaos of ancient Semitic cosmology. The Bible, however, presents the creation event in stark abstraction (q.v., Jewish Study Bible) that does not portray the drama found in Semitic cosmology. But should the use of the ACM lead us to invalidate the Bible?
It is important to recognize that the Bible spoke to people in terms that they recognized. You could not write a treatise on modern quantum mechanics and expect the readers at that time to understand it without some preparation in modern physics. For that matter, we probably could not now understand a treatise on the Cosmos written a couple of thousand years in the future. What was to the Ancients state-of-the-art cosmology has perforce become to us now allegory. This ancient view has staying power throughout this transition from cosmology to allegory because the spiritual principles carry forward and have not changed. I have no doubt that when the Priesthood wrote or redacted this physical description of the Cosmos, they actually believed their view was realistic and accurate. It was based on the astrophysics of their day. Their hard science now serves us as poetry and allegory.
Summation
The fact that the Bible contains the Ancient Cosmological Model does not make the Bible antique or irrelevant. Genesis is not in contention with geology. Only certain interpretations are in contention with geology. The Bible is foremost a work of theology – a work of spiritual principle. These spiritual principles may be carried in a physical framework that is subject to revision as human knowledge grows. Even now we are people who only know the “observable” universe. Much is yet to be revealed. To avoid the constraint of the growth in human knowledge, the Bible would have to become totally abstract. Instead, it is a book of an ancient people and their behaviors in their time and place, yet comprehensible to us based on our lived experience.
27 comments:
One thing which occurs to me is that, while the Bible is Israel-centric, history informs us that frequently other cultures were more scientifically advanced than was Israel. The juxtapositioning of science and religion is not purely a recent phenomenon, although perhaps it has become more acute in our own contemporary times.
The Old Testament is not the only area in which Armstrongism has left us wanting. Armstrong and Hoeh completely missed a major theme of the New Testament, in which the teachings of Jesus Christ were expanded into a world class belief system, the basic principles of which were shown to work in the context of all cultures, and not exclusively in the context of the Hebrew religion. As modern counterparts of the "circumcision party", they completely misinterpreted the work of the Apostle Paul, his work amongst the gentiles, and the edict of the first Jerusalem Council, as enunciated by James.
BB
Scout,
You have provided a well-articulated explanation of the basis for the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis. Of course, this reality is only a problem for Fundamentalists and Atheists. As we have discussed before, God chose to make Scripture a joint project with humankind - to involve them in communicating his plans to humanity. Ironically, humankind demands perfection from writings which they helped to create - CRAZY! Scripture was NEVER intended to be a science or history text, and those who employ it in that capacity do so at their own peril.
Great Post BB,
I am always reminded of:
Isaiah 19:24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land.
When one honestly reads Paul's writings and other NT writers, you see the inclusivity of God's Plan. Even in beginning of Acts 2, people from around the world in that area. As He wants men to repent everywhere (Acts 17:30).
Miller:
Thanks. I believe you hit on the salient point in your comment. God let the author or authors of Genesis 1 use a model for the Cosmos that was current at that time. Within the framework of that model, we find expressed spiritual principles. The foremost being that God created the Cosmos. This is stated in relative abstraction in scripture. There is none of the mythic quality that one finds in other creation stories in other nations at that time. But the fact remains, that God permitted the authors to use familiar concepts and ideas because the concepts really do not interfere with the spiritual meaning. Those who want the Bible to be a physics textbook, reflecting the state of our physics now as if we had the final picture, are no doubt disappointed in God’s grace.
One important fact that fundamentalists must confront, is that the Torah is compiled from a number of sources. These separate strands of meaning may have originated with Moses and then were embellished by curators. Or Moses may not have been involved in some of the pericopes at all. We know that Moses wrote something but we do not know its boundaries.
Richard Friedman, a theologian at the University of Georgia, Identifies Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 as coming from a source in the Priesthood. And the first part of Genesis 2:4 is a redactor’s statement. From the latter part of verse 4 through Genesis 4:24 we have a different creation story contributed by Yahwists. This means that human curators organized the scripture in the first part of Genesis. And the redactor did not even smooth the uneven flow of the account. The redactor let both creation stories exist side by side intact. While this drives some people postal, Jesus did not have heartburn over it. He seldom even spoke of the Old Testament explicitly. Jesus came as the living enactment of the Word of God. At this point, all the issues with the OT collapse.
Scout
Byker 7:32
It would be nice to have more information on the Circumcision Party. They advocated the keeping of the Law of Moses as the pathway to salvation. Paul knocked heads with them over this. I wonder if anybody knows where they came from and what they were after. My guess is that they were trying to control the fledgling Christian Movement. If they could sell the idea that the Law of Moses was required for salvation, they could pull the membership away from the disciples and ultimately Jesus. But I think they underestimated the Christian leadership. Paul, Peter and James did not seem to argue with the Circumcision Party at the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. They pretty much gave the Circumcision Part a haircut. But the Law of Moses continued to be an issue down through the centuries. Many cult groups tried to re-introduce the Law of Moses. I think the Law was seen as a back door into the Christian Movement - a way of insinuating and creating havoc.
Scout
What motivated God to create a new heaven and earth?
It is suggested that ‘the world’ was in a state of chaos in the neo-lithic age and that the first two chapters of Genesis provides God’s answer to ending the chaos. In priestly theology God was going to create order out of chaos — chaos to cosmos.
Ge 1:4b and God separated [badal] between the light and darkness
Lev 10:10a and to make a distinction [badal] between the holy and unholy
In the priestly conception of the world order is created by separation — putting things in their place; and order is maintained by keeping ‘things’ in their place.
Ronald Youngblood argues that days 1-3 were days of “forming” and days 4-6 were days of “filling”. While John Walton sees days 1-3 as days of creating “functions” and days 4-6 installing “functionaries”.
But was literally created in Ge 1:1-2:4a?
Ge 1:15 And let them be for lights [me'or] in the firmament of the heaven to give light ['or] upon the earth:...
Ex 35:14 The candlestick also for the light [me'or], and his furniture, and his lamps, with the oil for the light [me'or],
The Hebrew word translated “lights” [me’orot] is used 19 times in its various forms; 15 of which are in the Pentateuch; and remarkably the ten occurrences outside of Genesis all refer to the light of the lampstand. This suggests, adding Ge 1:4b & Lev 10:10a to the mixture, that there is another dimension, or dimensions to the creation account.
It is suggested that while Gen 1:1-2:4a describes a macrocosm, what is actually created is not the macrocosm but the microcosm that was going to become the macrocosm. Some chapters later a local flood is described, in universal terms, as worldwide. This suggests that the microcosm that was created was also described, in universal terms, as a “new heaven and earth”.
(In Daniel 2 the ‘stone” [microcosm] becomes a great mountain [macrocosm], and fills the whole earth).
It is also suggested that Rev 21:1-3 helps in explaining what was created in Genesis. In v.1 Johns sees a “new heaven and a new earth”. In v.2, instead of seeing a panorama of the new heavens and earth with many forests, rivers, mountains, streams, valleys, etc., he sees a city. So in verse 2 the focus narrows from the new heaven and earth to a city. But this is no ordinary city as v.3 reveals, God is present in the city.
Ge 2:5 no plant of the field [sadeh] was yet in the earth ['erets], and no herb of the field [sadeh] sprouted: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth ['erets], and there was not a man ['adam] to till the ground ['adama].
When one comes to what is often called the second creation account one sees that it is not an idyllic world. With the ‘second’ creation account one has gone from a “new heaven and earth” to a localized scene.
Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
The focus has narrowed from the macrocosm to a garden. But this is not an ordinary garden it has the presence of God who walks in the garden in the cool of the day.
Eden/garden was to be an answer to the chaos of the neo-lithic world.
Part 2
Ge 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work [‘abad] it and take care of [shamer] it (NIV).
Nu 3:8 They are to take care of [shamar] all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing [‘abad] the work of the tabernacle (NIV).
Eden pictures the Most Holy Place and the Garden pictures the Holy Place.
Adam and Eve and their family was meant to extend the local garden (microcosm) so that the world would become a global garden (macrocosm). God, working with Adam and Eve, who have a priestly function, was to create a new cosmos. But Adam and Eve failed so God had to create a new microcosm.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... let them make (‘asah) me a sanctuary (Exodus 25:1, 8, AV).
"Commentators for centuries have noticed that the phrase "the LORD said to Moses" occurs seven times in chapters 25-31. The first six concern the building of the tabernacle and its furnishings (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1), while the final introduces the Sabbath command (31:12). It seems clear that the purpose of this arrangement is to aid the reader in making the connection between the building of the tabernacle and the seven days of creation, both involving six creative acts culminating in a seventh-day rest" (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.509).
"The deliverance of Israel from Egypt marked a new beginning for God's people, a "new creation”... the tabernacle, itself [is] a microcosm of creation ... It, too is a new creation..." (Peter Enns, Exodus, NIVAC, p.552). Like Adam and Eve Israel failed with Moses’ tabernacle and Solomon’s temple.
Eze 44:4a I looked and saw the glory of the LORD filling the temple of the LORD
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Jon Levenson can note, from ancient near-eastern thought, that when YHWH builds a new Temple he is “creating a new world, and vice versa...” (The Temple and the World, p.295).
The Millennial Temple, described in Ezekiel 40-48, is going to be the microcosm that facilitates the world becoming a macrocosm. The Kingdom of God starting as a stone will become a great mountain and fill the whole earth. No failure here.
“Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Hebrew Bible begins with an account of the creation of heaven and earth by the command of God (Gen. 1:1) and ends with the command of the God of heaven "to build him a Temple in Jerusalem" (2 Chron. 36:23). It goes from creation (temple) to Temple (creation) in twenty-four books" (Jon D. Levenson, The Temple and the World, p.295).
Ge 2:10 a river [potamos] proceeds [ekporeuomai] out of [ek] Edem (Brenton, LXX).
Ge 2:9 the tree [xulon] of life [zoe] also in the midst [mesos] of the garden [paradeisos] (Brenton, LXX).
Rev 22:1 ... a pure river [potamos] ... proceeding [ekporeuomai] out of [ek] the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2a In the midst [mesos] of the street of it; and on either side of the river, was there the tree [xulon] of life [zoe],
Building on Jon Levenson: Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Christian Bible goes from creation (temple) to City (creation) in sixty-six books.
Multi-part man 816 writes:
"It is no coincidence that the Christian Bible goes from creation to city in sixty six books".
Your entire comment is excellent! I believe the book and framework we have in hand today is the dependable, holy, just and good WORD God wants us to have and live by, regardless of the humanity, methodology, and sources He used to create it.
There is no need to sweat the technicalities!
Part 1, Part 2
Although I may not agree with you on every point, broadly I do. This from the Jewish Study Bible, about Genesis chapter 1:
“The concern shown in this story for order and clear boundaries typifies the Priestly corpus. More importantly, the creation of the world…bears several striking resemblances to the Priestly construction of the Tabernacle mandated and executed (in Exodus) - the prototype of the Jerusalem Temple and the focus of the priestly service of the Lord. Other ancient Near Eastern creation stories also conclude with the construction of a temple for the creation god. In the Tanakh, the world is sometimes seen as the Lord’s Temple, and the Temple as a microcosm…”
(This is found in the notes of JSB. I stripped out the scripture references because I did not want to type them in.)
I believe that Genesis 1 does not support Creatio ex Nihilo. Creatio ex Nihilo is a NT doctrine. In fact, one school of Jewish thought (Bar Kappara) concluded that God created the Cosmos out of pre-existent material. Genesis 1:1 does seem to start with a state of malevolent chaos as does many Middle Eastern creation stories. But there is no explanation of the origin of this chaos. It doesn’t start with nothing and then there was something. There is a gap in Genesis 1:1 but it is not a chronological gaps as Hoeh proposes. It is a gap in data and this gap is closed up in the first chapter of John.
This leads me to think that the Priests who wrote the Creation Story 1 (Creation Story 2 begins in Genesis 2) were not really concerned about the origination of the Cosmos, the step from nothing to something. They were instead interested in those concepts that supported the Priestly mandate in the Torah. I believe the distinction between microcosm/macrocosm is relevant.
Scout
I wonder if anybody had any opinions on the text: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
I heard someone raving about it years ago.
BP8 wrote, “I believe the book and framework we have in hand today is the dependable, holy, just and good WORD God wants us to have and live by, regardless of the humanity, methodology, and sources He used to create it.”
While this statement sounds mom-and-apple-pie, it may be an incorrect praxis depending on how it is meant. God wants us to live by the example of Jesus (after John the Baptist) who is the living, enacted Word of God, by the provisions of the New Testament and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. HWA/Hoeh/Meredith added that in order to receive salvation you must live by the Law of Moses, excluding the sacrifices and the requirement to impose death penalties. And that reduced Mosaic package was written on your heart as a Christian.
Your statement does not make a distinction between whether you are following the NT or Armstrongism. The two are quite different.
Scout
I prefer to see Ge 1:1 as a heading for the account of creation; similar to other headings; e.g.:
Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations [toldot] of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Ge 2:4 These are the generations [toldot] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ge 1:1 In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.
Ge 2:1 Thus were finished the heavens and the earth and all the host of them.
"There are numerous explanations for the relationship of 1:1-2 to the account of the six days of creation... A fourth view takes verse 1, "God created the heavens and the earth," as the heading of the account of creation... That first sentence came to possess concrete meaning only after the completion of creation. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause about the unorganized state of matter before God began to create. A description of disorganized matter before speaking of creation accords with the ancient practice of beginning an account of origins by describing that which did not exist..." (John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBC, p.41).
Ge 2:1 Thus were finished the HEAVENS AND THE EARTH and all the host of them.
Ge 2:2 And ended GOD on the day seventh His work which he had made [‘asah] and he rested on the day seventh from His work which he had made [‘asah]
Ge 2:3 And blessed God day the seventh and He sanctified it; because in it He rested from all the work which had CREATED [bara'] God and made (‘asah).
"1:1 - 2:3 form the first section of Genesis... 2:1-3 echoes 1:1 by introducing the same phrases but in reverse order: "he created," "God," "heaven and earth" [1:1] reappears as "heaven and earth" (2:1) "God" (2:2), "created" (2:3). This chiastic pattern brings the section to a neat close which is reinforced by the inclusion "God created" linking 1:1 and 2:3" (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1:15, WBC, p.5).
Ge 1:1 In the beginning created God ['elohim] the heavens and the earth.
Ge 2:4b in the day that the LORD [Yahweh] God made the earth and the heavens,
“This chapter is primarily about God and human beings...” (David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1-11, BST, p.56).
“...we note the sudden shift in name for deity from simply “God” to Yahweh God. This designation is used consistently throughout the remainder of the chapter and through ch. 3 (19 times in all). But curiously enough the combination appears in the Pentateuch only once more (Exod 9:30), though it occurs about twenty times elsewhere in the OT...
“In Gen.1 the emphasis is on creation via the majestic God who speaks and it is done. The more generic name for God -’elohim - fits the emphasis admirably. By contrast, the emphasis in 2:4ff. is more personal...” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapter 1-17, NICOT, pp.152-53)
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
"In Hebrew this sentence consists of seven words, mirroring the seven days of creation" (John E. Hartley, Genesis, NIBC, p.42).
Isa 65:17a For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
Isa 65:17a also consists of seven words in Hebrew.
Isa 65:17a For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
Isa 65:18b for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy
“The new creation (17) is now Jerusalem, the new city... It is in this way that the new creation become the new Jerusalem: THE LORD’S PERFECT ORGANIZATION OF HIS NEW CREATION as a perfect setting for his new people” (J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah, TOTC, p.450).
Scout 146 and his technicalities. Actually, you are not that much different than HWA, Hoeh, and Meredith (after John the Baptist, provisions of the NT, guidance of the HS) what????
What I said is backed up by BOTH testaments:
"Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Deut.8:3, Matt.4:4).
Now, the 64,000 dollar question is, in order to LIVE BY every word, must I perform every single physical function of that word? There are probably 41,000 different answers in the Christian realm but I think most of us on this site know better and are probably are in close agreement, but hey, feel free to clarify.
Mom and apple pie? Are not those good things?
Part1, Part2 wrote, “What motivated God to create a new heaven and earth?”
I scanned what you wrote a few times and every time I did I was confused. You open with the quoted line above which leads me think you are going to talk about the re-creation rather than the original creation and then you write about the original creation described in Genesis. I just re-read what you wrote, after a couple of days, and concluded that I still don’t know what you are talking about. Can you tell me in one clear sentence what you are trying to say about this? BP8 apparently understood it well. Maybe he could write a sentence.
Let me write up, a little, my understanding. Maybe you can tell me where your understanding fits in this picture. I have often encountered the following idea of the New Heavens and New Earth among Christians. First, the model is: creation, then the Cross and then the re-creation. Jesus saved not just humanity but the Cosmos. And second, now that he has, there will be a re-creation or renewal of all things in the future. Christ refers to this renewal in Matthew 19:28. The idea of renewal I believe is behind the idea found among many Christians that the Cosmos is not going to be destroyed and replaced but refurbished.
The Armstrongist concept of the New Heavens and New Earth is that destruction and replacement will occur. There is with this the idea that the New Heavens and New Earth will be composed of something more durable than matter an energy. It will never run down, experience deconstruction or entropy. I admit that I tend to side with the Armstrongists on this because of this scripture in Peter:
“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
We also have this in Revelation 21:1,
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”
Are Peter and John of Patmos giving us allegory or are they describing a physical event? If it is a physical event, then the Armstrongist idea of discard and replace works.
So, based on my reading of this, there are several motivations for God creating a New heavens and New Earth. He wants to create something pristine. He wants to create something that has not be deconstructed (galaxies destructively collide in our Cosmos, stars explode, etc.). And perhaps he wants to create the new Cosmos out of something that does not deteriorate or gradually become disorganized. And maybe other things I have not thought about.
Scout
BP8 wrote, “… (after John the Baptist, provisions of the NT, guidance of the HS) what????”
Sorry. I didn’t elaborate – wasn’t sure anyone was reading. “After John the Baptist” refers to what Jesus said. The Law and the Prophets were until John. This is to counter the assertion that Armstrongists make. If one states that we are to follow the example of Jesus, Armstrongists will say that Jesus kept the Mosaic Law therefore we must keep the Law of Moses. But Jesus stated that the Law and the Prophets only had relevance until John. So, it is what Jesus exemplified after John that we are to follow as a model.
“Provisions of the NT” just refers to the Law of Christ contained in the NT. This Law sometimes repeats part of the Torah but in general focuses on spiritual behavior rather than physical activities.
“Guidance of the HS” refers to the activity of the Holy Spirit in your life. Armstrongists and other fundamentalists tend to be worshippers of the Bible to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit.
You wrote, “Now, the 64,000 dollar question is, in order to LIVE BY every word, must I perform every single physical function of that word.” What do you think? Do you have to go out and buy some slaves so you can keep the laws in the Torah about slavery? If you follow every word of the Torah, you will end up doing some things that are illegal in the USA. One of the flaws of the Armstrongist view.
Scout
A while back I listened to a presentation by Peter Enns. In this presentation he commented that in the ancient near-east, when telling a story of great person, one would cue in the audience early on that this person was destined for greatness by having him as a baby in an ark floating on water. The audience would not necessarily take this literally, but would understand it as a communication device of importance in what followed.
“... when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much” (Derek Kidner, Genesis,TOTC, p.30).
While I do not know if this is true but it wouldn’t surprise me. It just confirms that we see through a glass darkly in trying to make out what literally happened in ancient near eastern story telling.
My impression is that if you wanted to cue your audience of “new beginning” of importance one would introduce to the audience a creation story.
Now I don’t believe that 6,000 years ago that the world was without form and void in a state in a state of chaos as presented in Genesis 1.
Reversal: Order to Chaos
Jer 4:5 Declare ye in Judah, and publish in Jerusalem; and say, Blow ye the trumpet in the land: cry, gather together, and say, Assemble yourselves, and let us go into the defenced cities.
Ge 1:2a And the earth was without form [tohu], and void [bohu]; and darkness [choshek] was upon the face of the deep
Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form [tohu], and void [bohu]; and the heavens, and they had no light ['or].
"Verses 23-26 contain a poetic account of a vision of chaos, the horror of the subject matter highlighted by the extraordinary beauty and force of the poetry. There are affinities with the language of the creation story in Gen 1:1-2:4a, though the poem is in reverse, describing the emergence of chaos from order... But there are also affinities with the second creation story (Gen 2:4b ff.), both in the absence of and reference to the primeval waters and in the allusion to the wilderness... The prophet adapts the ancient tradition of creation to give expression to his fearful vision of chaos" (Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelly & Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25, WBC, p.81).
Philip Perry, in regard to the neolithic bottleneck argued that “... over the course of long-term, brutal warfare, many clans were wiped out and with them, their particular type of Y-chromosome. This took place over the course of 2,000 years....Those clans successful in warfare grew wealthy and powerful. As such, the monarch and his sons had exclusive mating rights. They could have many wives, concubines, and/or courtesans each, and so the genetic diversity of our species dwindled...” (Philip Perry, The mystery of the Neolithic bottleneck may be over, thanks to one plucky undergrad, bigthink.com, June 10, 2018).
It is suggested that, when also comparing the pre-flood world and pre tower of babe world, that human chaos pre-creation world was something like what Philip Perry presented.
Ge 4:16 And Cain WENT OUT FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Ge 4:17a And Cain knew HIS WIFE; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
It follows then that I also do not believe that Adam and Eve were the only humans on the earth at one time 6,000 years ago; but were the two individuals that God was going to work with to bring order out of chaos. Just as Moses built the tabernacle, God ‘created’ Eden as the microcosm that was to expand and fill the earth and that this was to be facilitated by God having a ‘dwelling’ presence in Eden and the garden.
Part 2
In regard to 2 Peter 3:8-10, this is apocalyptic hyperbole.
2 Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
“Peter’s language is not entirely clear in detail, which is hardly surprising. He is using the language of apocalyptic...” (Michael Green, 2 peter and Jude, TNTC,p.161).
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
“The fact that this theophanic language can be employed in an altogether symbolical manner to assert the glory and majesty of God and his transcendence over his creation (Ps 18; Mic 1) should warn us against any wooden literalness of understanding... The theophanic language describing the eschatological visitation set forth not only the glory and majesty of God and the subordination and dependence of his creation upon its creator; it is also an expression of a profound theology of creation and man's place in creation. Man is a creature and as such stands in a real solidarity with all creation. Both man and nature are dependent upon God for their very existence” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.62-63).
Zechariah pictures the literal reality:
Ac 1:11 ... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley...
Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. (cp. 2 Th 3;13).
Enoch 1:9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: (cp. Jude 1:14; Rev 19:11-21).
In his explanation of 2 Pet 3:8-10 Richard Bauckman wrote:
“With the exception of the image of the thief, derived from Jesus’ parable, the whole passage could have been written by a Jewish apocalyptist, and in fact it is quiet probable that the author has closely followed a Jewish apocalyptic source. This borrowing from Jewish apocalyptic is justified by the apologetic purpose of the passage. The objection of the false teachers were aimed against the expectation of eschatological judgment, against the hope that God will not allow wickedness to prevail in this world forever, but will intervene finally to vindicate and to establish righteousness. For this expectation primitive Christianity was indebted to Jewish apocalyptic, which was much concerned with this theme and which also wrestled with the theological problem posed by the apparent delay of the eschatological judgment. It was therefore appropriate that out author should draw on the resources of Jewish apocalyptic tradition to counter his opponents’ objections. Both the apocalyptic hope for the triumph of God’s righteousness in the world and the apocalyptic understanding of eschatological delay remain valid for Christians, even though the specifically Christian interpretation of the eschatological hope and reference to Jesus Christ can also provide new perspectives on the judgement and its delay” (Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC, p.322).
As an aside to including a baby in an ark on the water as a beginning of an account, though it didn’t happen, to clue the audience to the importance of this person in the future, perhaps in a ‘creation’ account the heroes are created from the earth and rib to also cue the audience of the importance of the new beginning.
Scout at 238 asks "what do I think"?
No, one does not have to go buy slaves in order to KEEP the slavery laws of Torah, even as one doesn't need to go buy an ox in order to LIVE BY the law of Moses. Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 9.
To " live by" the word (Matt.4:4) is different from "following every word" or "keeping" the law. One does not 'keep or follow' a piece of bread, but partakes of it in order to be sustained by it. With God's word, doing such is not "worshipping the Bible", but a recognition of the divine authority of Scripture, affirming its inspiration, completeness, and sufficiency for guiding and sustaining life.
Part1, Part2 5:18 wrote: “Now I don’t believe that 6,000 years ago that the world was without form and void in a state in a state of chaos as presented in Genesis 1.”
In these two parts, you have given us a discussion of semantics. I believe semantics is important in assessing the first chapter of Genesis. The “author” of the Genesis 1 pericope was a member of the Priesthood. As I stated, I think what he wrote was regarded as factual by the Priesthood. It was, for them, hard science. But the account contains inconsistencies, back then and now. The account is abstract and highly structured but inconsistent. Later, perhaps in the time of Ezra, a Redactor assembled these pericopes and left the inconsistencies in Genesis 1 unaddressed. This is our first clue that the Genesis 1 pericope was not regarded by later generations in Israel as fact but as allegory. And later, with more science available to us, we have statements like yours quoted above.
This opens the question, “What is Genesis 1 describing?” Hoeh applied the Gap Theory to the first verse and then viewed Genesis 1 as a post-disaster housekeeping story. I don’t think the Priesthood wrote it that way. They were describing the creation of the Cosmos in narrative that parallels other Near Eastern creation accounts. The Priesthood’s principal assertion is that Elohim did this and not some pagan god or pantheon. Their principal assertion was theology and not cosmology. Cosmology is the moveable framework that supports but does not define the theology.
I believe the Priesthood was actually describing the creation of the Cosmos. One might think otherwise without unpacking the semantics. Atheists, who wish to impugn the Bible, might designate the account as a folk tale but the semantics delivers a different conclusion. Verse 1 starts with the creation of the sky and earth not the heavens and the earth, as if the heavens were already there. Richard E. Friedman translates the first part of Genesis 1:1 as:
“In the beginning of God’s creating the skies and the earth – when the earth had been shapeless and formless …”
And then there was pre-existing Primordial Chaos. So, to the modern reader, Genesis 1:1 starts somewhere in the middle of the movie. A bunch has already happened. But here we must attend to semantics. To the ancients, who believed in the Three Story Universe, the sky and the earth constituted the Three Stories of the Cosmos. That is all there was. And as for Primordial Chaos, the Jewish Study Bible notes:
“To modern people, the opposite of the created order is “nothing,” that is, a vacuum. To the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than “nothing.” It was an active malevolent force that we can best term “chaos.”
So, the Priesthood intended that their account start at the beginning of the movie. And what they wrote comes close to Creatio ex Nihilo, although that doctrine is given precision in the NT. In Genesis 1, we have the step from the ancient version of “nothing” to something and the something is the full Cosmos. But one has to parse the semantics to find this. As to the timing of all this, all we have is the delicate phrase, “in the beginning.” We still don’t know when this was. There was a Big Bang that led to the Inflation but how long was the singularity around before the Big Bang happened?
Scout
Scout, you mention the Big Bang. I was just reading a comment on Hebrews 1:5-14 which mentions the “Big Bang”. Here is an except which has an amusing last sentence:
“The agent of creation. In the beginning of scientific investigation, many pursued scientific knowledge from the conviction that God ordered the universe. However, with the advent of the Enlightenment, old theological moorings were abandoned, and science became for many not only a philosophical orientation but also a means of pursuing truth. Science, in other words, became the supreme epistemological authority of he universe. There was no creation, they suggested, but a cosmic accident that resulted in an evolutionary process ending in what we know as physical reality. Some fundamental Christians have reacted by rejecting science altogether, putting it in a dichotomous relationship over against revelation and focusing on the age of the earth as the issue central to the creation debate. Other Christians, however, stress that science can play a positive role of participating with the heavens in declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19:1-6) for those who will listen.
“Hugh Ross is one of the latter. In his book Creation and Time, Ross suggest that recent findings in astrophysics present believers with unprecedented opportunity to proclaim the biblical picture of God as creator to the scientific community. Among the facts about the universe agreed upon by virtually all astronomers, Ross presents the following:
“(1) The universe is only billions of years old, not quadrillions or a near infinite number of years.
“(2) The universe can be traced back to a single, ultimate origin of matter, energy, time and space as we know them, and, therefore, the Cause of the events must have an existence independent of the universe.
“(3) The universe, our galaxy, and our solar system demonstrated more than sixty characteristics that require exquisite fine-tuning for their very evidence and for the existence of any kind of physical life. Three of the characteristics must be fined-tuned to a precision of one part in 10 to the power of 37 or better.
“Even secular scientists are acknowledging the profound theological implications of such findings. Among the evidence, none has greater implications than that which supports the so-called Big Bang. In April 1992, George Smoot, project leader for the satellite dubbed Cosmic Background Explorer, proclaimed that the ripples in the radiation left over from the Big bang had been observed. He commented, “What we found is evidence for the birth of the universe,” and “It’s like looking at God.” Speaking of the recent findings in astronomy, agnostic Robert Jastrow writes that scientists have been “scaling the mountains of ignorance ... conquering the highest peak ... pulling [themselves] over the final rock ... [to be] greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” ” (George H. Guthrie, Hebrews, NIVAC, p.80-81).
Anonymous 2:05 wrote, “… you mention the Big Bang.”
I appreciate your viewpoint and I believe devoutly that the Bible and scientific findings are compatible – must be compatible. The former is the Book of God’s Words and the latter the Book of God’s Works. Of course, neither are perfectly understood by mankind. We have a way to go in the direction of epistemology. And we always will. Gregory of Nyssa calls it Epektasis.
But let me say something about the Big Bang. If my understanding is correct, I am in disagreement with Hugh Ross’ first two points. Let me add I am not an astrophysicist. I have just done some reading. While we know approximately how old the Universe as we know it is, we do not know when all things began. To us, the universe is the “observable” Universe. As far as the eye can see but no further. All too often science writers drop the adjective “observable” and it gives the impression that we know a lot more than we do. And it makes a difference.
For example, the singularity that is posited in the Big Bang was not a tiny object, like a dust mote, that expanded into the Cosmos. We cannot describe the singularity in its larger context. We just know that the observable Universe was at one time very small and behaved according to different laws than we have now and that little piece real estate expanded into what we call the Cosmos. It may have been a tiny part of a larger mass or field or substrate or whatever it was. And the rest of its context may have given rise to whatever is beyond the observable Universe. So, we know what is observable had a beginning and that stretches back a few billion years as Ross points out. But we do not know how long that mysterious singularity and its context were in existence before the Bang and Inflation.
And, as Ross suggests, we know that the Universe came from a single “ultimate origin” but we do not know the origin of the up-stream singularity that began the process. I think Ross is right to deduce logically that the Universe is independent of its cause. But the Big Bang Theory by itself does not prove that view because the theory posits a singularity of unknown properties and origin. Scientists have concluded that the laws of chemistry and physics as we know them did not begin to hold sway until the Inflation after the Big Bang.
What really would be fascinating is if scientists could find some kind of evidence of the original step from nothing to something. Like in one time period you have nothing and in the next time period you have a singularity waiting to inflate. The step from nothing to something is what Genesis 1:1 may be describing (if the Primordial Chaos of Genesis 1:1 is understood to be nothingness as understood by the ancient Semites) and what John 1 certainly does describe . Personally, I think we will never get past the singularity going backward into history.
Scout
Bible geology and cosmology is just flat out wrong. If God is perfect, the Bible (as we know it) cannot be inspired by God. The scientific errors in the Bible could have been avoided (omitted). They serve no spiritual purpose. People need to face reality and honesty admit the problem rather than rationalize around it.
The scientific errors in the Koran are used by Christians to reject the Koran. So, they ought to reject the Bible also.
People desperate to cling to the Bible sure go through a lot of trouble to synthesize it with whatever "science" seems to be in vogue at the moment.
The "scientific" paradigms of cosmology change every 50 or 100 years. In another 20 or 50 years the people who "rewrote" the bible to keep modern "cosmology" happy will have to "rewrite" it again.
The picture of the cosmos as seen by old-timers is great and clarifies a lot.
Post a Comment