Biblical Cosmologies, Part II

Biblical
Cosmologies, Part 2: Daniel's Response (in red).

The reader will notice that the term “biblical cosmology” is not used in the singular. The author finds that it is tenuous to assume that the biblical authors envisioned an identical model of the cosmos. Though the models of the cosmos found in the biblical texts contain commonalities, not every portrait is comprehensive. Some portraits focus on only one constituent of the cosmos while others reflect on a more complete
construal. Hence, the author will focus on the explicit cosmological aspects of a given passage before addressing implicit connections.

The thesis continues without the actual evidence argued. It is my observation that evolutionist propaganda is long on assumptions and stated conclusions without actual discussion of the evidence. In fact, you have to wade through pages or rhetoric in many works just to get to a point that argues actual evidence.

For the reasons described above, the author has chosen to deal individually with texts that describe the cosmos. Though a systematic, biblical study could be done of “biblical cosmology” with fruitful results similar to those in this study, the author prefers to focus on each portrait individually. Patterns will emerge through systematic reflection on each portrait, and the author aspires to make connections so as to benefit the cognition of the reader.

Ditto.

The Genesis 1 creation narrative contains numerous convergences with
pre-biblical Sumerian-Babylonian and Canaanite creation traditions. Some of these parallels are of the utmost importance as the exigency of Genesis 1 is likely found in these polytheistic creation myths. Genesis 1 is polemically directed to combat polytheistic cosmogonies through literary reworking and anesthetization of existing polytheistic creation myths.

Errant sources often contain large elements of truth. That's the nature of error, to mix truth with error. So it would not be surprising to find some parallels in ancient Babylonian myths, but it is a methodological mistake to try to reinterpret what Genesis 1 says with the errant portions of the myths.

Peter assumes a priori that the bible descended from these myths.
The truth is reverse. The myths descend from the original truth contained in the Bible.

Leeming (52) explains the Sumerian-Babylonian creation myth contained in Enuma Elish as the victory of order over chaos. In Enuma Elish, the hero-god Marduk combats the dragon goddess Tiamat who represents the chaotic waters of primordial existence. Marduk crushes Tiamat—dividing her dead body in half. Tiamat who was the dragon of primordial watery chaos becomes the vehicle to establish the separation of the chaotic waters. Part of her corpse was used to hold the chaotic waters above at bay while the other half is transformed into the terrestrial abode of humanity and the threshold against the waters below upon which the earth floats.

I see evidence here that this myth is a corruption of the Bible's truth. "Marduk" is generally understood to represent Nimrod. Notice the key consonants MRD.

Contrary to popular assertions of creation ex nihilo, Genesis 1 follows the lead of the ancient cosmologies with the assumption pre-existent primordial water (Beltz, 35).

It may be taken for granted that God created that water even if it is not explicitly stated.

Notice, at no point is there a specific creation of water in Genesis 1. Water is assumed to exist. The Hebrew T’hom (“without form”) of Genesis 1:2 linguistically and thematically correlates with the Sumerian-Babylonian Tiamat. Though sanitized of reference to gods and goddesses, Elohim in Genesis 1 combats the primordial, watery chaos to
achieve victory. Creation itself is initiated through separating order out of chaos (darkness and water).

This is an argument from silence. Just because something is not stated does not mean it did not occur. Once again the paragraph assumes that the Babylonian myth is the source of Gen 1. There may be some connection, but the connection is historical reverse of the claim here. The myth is a corruption of the divine revelation. The disorder in Genesis one is merely the disorder of materials before a construction project. The chaos in the Babylonian myth is a mortal battle between sentient beings involving death and destruction. The Genesis account calls creation "good" seven times. We cannot say the same for the Babylonian myth.

The first act of Elohim in the Genesis 1 creation myth is the separation of light from darkness. This act is followed on day two with the creation of the firmament (Hebrew rakia). The Hebrew word for “firmament” (rakia-- רָקִיעַ) is derived from the root raka. This root means to “spread out by beating” (BDB) or “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch” (TWOT). It carries the idea of beating out a solid malleable material such as a metal.

Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) define rakia-
רָקִיע(“firmament”) as follows:

…the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above
the earth (from the root [raka]), like a splendid and pellucid sapphire (Ex. 24:10, compare Dan. 12:3), to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean (Gen. 1:17; 7:11; Ps. 104:3; 148:4…

If is often the case that the meaning of words does not correspond exactly to their root etymology. Rather the meaning has a relation to the root meaning. And wherever an author gives a technical definition of a word he used, that definition takes precedence over all others. God gives a definition of RAQIA in Genesis 1:8, "And Elohim called the RAQIA 'heavens'". This self-definition in the text points us in the right direction. This definition is what the ancient's would have used.

In our English conception "heavens" means space outside our atmosphere. However the Hebrew usage includes the atmosphere, and in fact, the RAQIA heavens is the whole expanse from the surface of the earth to the throne of God above the heavens.

The heavens (RAQIA) are bounded both above and below by water. The website at the bottom of this page www.creationscience.com explains a model for the lower boundary of the heavens. Other creationist Cosmologists have constructed models of the heavens
with waters at the perimeter of the Universe.

The waters at the edge of the Universe are not detectible at this time since they are too far away, but the Scripture does allude to them when it speaks of the voice of God as many waters. When God brings his throne to earth it is possible that there is a space time compression of the Universe at the point of his contact with earth so that the waters above become detectible in God's speaking.

It is very possible that the RAQIA is so called because of the solid nature of the lower boundary and possible solid nature of the upper boundary at the edge of the Universe. Some creationist Cosmologists have suggested the possibility of a solid substructure for the expanse itself at the level of super-string physics.

Biblical Creations do hold to the ancient Hebrew view. It is also a modern view that continues. There are waters above and waters below, but the RAQIA has never been understood as a plain "dome" except by simple minded people who neglect to read the definition of RAQIA in Genesis 1:8.

This does not mean that all descriptions one will read about the "dome vault of heaven" are by the simple minded. Very often this is the language of appearance or is used poetically or figuratively. The sky does look like a blue-saphire dome.

Evolutionists often object to the language of appearance and call it "special pleading". However they are at the minimum unwitting hypocrites when they do so. The fact is that modern science uses the language of appearance or uses language in poetic ways way beyond the usual semantic domain of the words used. Why for example is string theory called "STRING" theory? Do they really use strings? Why do quarks have flavors? What is an up quark and a down quark. Why is an evolutionary phylogenic tree called a "TREE"?
The fact is, that real scientific realities OFTEN exceed the development of language, and therefore it is accepted practice to pin words on these realities that might be misleading is taken too literally, or if the context is not paid well attention to. (note: an evolutionary tree is not one of them).

The scripture speaks of "spreading out the heavens like a tent". The idea of spreading (or beating) may be related to RAQIA here.

Somehow the stars and galaxies are fixed to the RAQIA. I doubt that the ancients supposed that they were tied to space by "STRINGS", but this is exactly what some modern physicists would say. In classrooms at least, many a model was hung on a STRING.

When read against the backdrop of the ancient cosmologies and the
literary-etymological etiology of the term rakia-
רָקִיעַthe picture of the cosmos portrayed in Genesis 1 becomes a reciprocation of the pre-scientific cosmologies of the
ancients—a flat earth with domed heavens.

Like I said, the Genesis 1:8 definition of RAQIA given by the author takes precedence. All the other usages of RAQIA will fit within the usage and semantic parameters of "heavens" in the Scripture.

The next post will develop build upon the Genesis 1 references to the firmament.

All this post did was develop a simple caricature of RAQIA. I should point out that what was offered as "evidence" of the ancient Hebrew world view as being unscientific, and being incapable of fitting into the discoveries of true science, has in fact been shown to be compatible with the truth of creation. That modern science has not discovered certain elements of the divinely revealed cosmology is not a problem.

As usual, the pro-evolutionary, anti biblical argument has simply turned out to be another deception. The evolutionists can keep plotting points to their argumentive graph, but one only has to connect the first few points to see that they aim in the direction of a lie. We do not have to connect all the points in a line to see where it leads. If we tried to do that, then we will find ourselves outspent, and out politicked. In this age, there is sufficient evidence for the truth, but God is not ready to restore the kingdom, so creationists will have to be content with being the underdog.

One should be careful to separate true scientific research from evolutionary dogma. The problem is that many scientists mix their research up with their false naturalistic religious dogma. The creationist must be careful not to read so much of this literature that he or she is unable to discern the good parts from the bad. For most people do not have a skill for separating good research impregnated with propaganda. It requires slow reading, understanding of the vocabulary, and asking yourself whether you know whether each clause of a book is true or not.

Often a reader finds himself saying "I don't know, I don't know …" when an author starts making assumptions. When that happens, then there is no way the reader can be certain of the conclusion. Often a reader just trusts what they are reading because it comes from someone they respect. The devil is very good at using "respectable" people to propagate lies.

For those who are willing to slow down and test all things with the observed creation and to listen to the Spirit of God will be given more ability to discern the truth. But for those who and unwilling to check out the first few points on the evolutionary graph, who are dragged down the infinite line of points, these will lose even what discernment they once had. It is better to turn back before one gets too far down the line.

Of course people have free will. All the argument in the world will not stop them from loving the path they have chosen.