Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[silentreader]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested, here is an article from the ISBE, published around 1930?

Astronomy, III
III. Physiography.
1. The Circle of the Earth:
It has generally been assumed that the Hebrews considered the earth to be a vast circular plain, arched over by a solid vault--"the firmament"--above which were stored, as if in cisterns, the "treasuries" (Job 38:22) of the rain, snow and hail, and some writers have even attempted to express this supposed conception in diagrammatic form. One of the best of these attempts, reproduced below, is given by Schiaparelli, in his Astronomy in the Old Testament.

But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the Old Testament. The same word (chagh) used in the Old Testament to express the roundness of the heavens (Job 22:14) is also used when the circle of the earth is spoken of (Isa 40:22), and it is likewise applied to the deep (Pr 8:27). Now it is obvious that the heavens are spherical in appearance, and to an attentive observer it is clear that the surface of the sea is also rounded. There is therefore no sufficient warrant for the assumption that the Hebrews must have regarded the earth as flat.

(1) The Earth a Sphere.
Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

(2) The North Stretched Out over Empty Space.
Here the "north" signifies the northern circumpolar constellations and the writer recognized that they stretch out beyond the utmost confines of the earth; so that he was not under any impression that the heavens rested upon the earth, or were borne up by mountains. The celestial sphere surrounded the earth entirely, but at a distance from it; between the two there was "empty space." Some commentators have indeed claimed that Job 26:10, "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness" is equivalent to a statement that the circumference of the terrestrial plain extended to the place where sea and sky met. But no man of intelligence can, at any time, have supposed that the sea horizon marked the dividing line between day and night, and the meaning of the passage is correctly given in the King James Version, "until the day and night come to an end"; in other words, the waters of the sea will be confined to their appointed place never again to overflow the earth so long as the succession of day and night shall continue (compare Ge 8:22; 9:15).

(3) The Corners of the Earth.
See EARTH, CORNERS OF THE.

2. The Pillars of the Earth:
erets, "the earth," is in general the surface of the earth, the dry land inhabited by man and beast. Hence "the pillars" of the earth (Job 9:6) are the rocks that bear up that surface, for as has been shown, it was quite clear to the author of the Book of Job, and to the primitive astronomers, that our world was unsupported in space. For "Vault of the Earth" see EARTH, VAULT OF.

3. The Firmament:
(1) The Hebrew Conception.
Above the, spherical earth was stretched out the "firmament" (raqia`) made on the second day of creation to "divide the waters from the waters" (Ge 16:1-16). To the Hebrews the "firmament" was the apparent void above, in which clouds float and the lights of heaven pursue their appointed paths. The word raqia`, by its etymology, suggests an expanse, something stretched, spread or beaten out, as when Isaiah (Ge 40:22) says that the Lord "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." But the Greek word stereoma, by which the Septuagint rendered raqia`, gives the meaning of a firm and solid structure, and our translators have carried out this same idea in their English rendering of "firmament."

(2) The Alexandrian Conception.
In this however the Septuagint simply expressed the astronomical science of their day as accepted in Alexandria, where the doctrine of a succession of solid crystalline spheres, each carrying a planet, held currency. But in order to express the Hebrew idea, raqia` should be rendered "expanse" or "space"; it corresponds to the "empty space" of Job 26:7. This "expanse" was appointed to divide "the waters which were under the expanse, from the waters which were above the expanse"; and it has been argued from this that the upper waters must have been regarded as being enclosed in a watertight reservoir, furnished with sluices or floodgates, which could be opened to allow the rain to fall.

4. The Windows of Heaven:
Thus in the account of the Flood, "the windows of heaven" are said to have been opened. But, 'arubbah, "window," means a network, or lattice, a form which can never have been ascribed to a literal floodgate; and in the other passages where "the windows of heaven" are mentioned the expression is obviously metaphorical (2Ki 7:2,19; Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10).

[silentreader]

I’m not insisting on anything. I’m not the one parsing Genesis for literalist interpretations of the shape of the earth and the form of the heavens.

Parsing, eh? I am insisting that where there are supposed discrepancies it is useful to give them careful study in order to discern truth.

What I meant was. If, for example you want to understand the shape of the earth and the composition of the heavens above, use a telescope rather than spending a lot of time trying to discern the original meaning of the biblical term “firmament” and other biblical terms from Genesis that describe the shape of the earth and composition of the sky.

But it is OK to waste my time in the Bible on other things?

[Ken]

Parsing, eh? I am insisting that where there are supposed discrepancies it is useful to give them careful study in order to discern truth.

What I meant was. If, for example you want to understand the shape of the earth and the composition of the heavens above, use a telescope rather than spending a lot of time trying to discern the original meaning of the biblical term “firmament” and other biblical terms from Genesis that describe the shape of the earth and composition of the sky.

But it is OK to waste my time in the Bible on other things?

Well, I would hope it isn’t a waste of your time.

[Falco Underhill]

St. Augustine on the Creation narrative —

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen. 1:1-2

1. in the Beginning, that is, in the divine Wisdom, the divine Word of God, Who is the Beginning, as He tells us in Jn 8:25, in answer to the question Who are you? - (I am) the Beginning. Also, Collosions 1:18, "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Also, John 1:1-3.

Augustine does not hesitate to affirm a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity in these first two verses of Genesis: "For, where Scripture says, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, we understand the Father in the name of God, and the Son in the name of the Beginning, Who is the beginning (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3) ... and, where Scripture says, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters, we see a full commemoration of the Trinity.

2. Augustine believed all that was created was created in a moment, in the Beginning. Thus the "days" of creation are for narrative purposes only.

3. The Biblical account references form and matter and light. Augustine does not believe there was a pre-existent formless matter because everything was created at once. The narrative does separate form and matter and light has the preeminent place. John 1:9

"But if the light which first was ordered to be made and was made is also to be understood as holding the pre-eminent place in creation, this is intellectual life, which, unless it should be turned to the Creator in order to be enlightened, would fluctuate formlessly."

Augustine believed the light of the first 3 days was a spiritual light.

Reference: https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/ar ... logy0.html

[temporal1]

C.S. Lewis believed God created man by evolution and then gifted man with a soul.

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself [….] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness […] In perfect cyclic movement, being, power and joy descended from God to man in the form of gift and returned from man to God in the form of obedient love and ecstatic adoration. (Lewis, Problem of Pain 65)

C.S. Lewis also upheld a view called methodological naturalism, the view that the methods of science can only arrive at naturalistic explanations. He wrote,

Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, ‘I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so and-so,’ […] Do not think I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is [….] But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes-something of a different kind-this is not a scientific question. (Mere 22)

http://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis ... -design/3/

I suppose these views are similar to my own.

I might quibble with C. S. Lewis's view that questions about God are not a matter for science though. The modern idea that only studies that use the experimental methods in its investigations qualify as science is erroneous, in my view. Plato's dialectics is a real science that can address that, imo. But I won't address that here further cause that would bunny trail.

St. Augustine on the Creation narrative —

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen. 1:1-2

1. in the Beginning, that is, in the divine Wisdom, the divine Word of God, Who is the Beginning, as He tells us in Jn 8:25, in answer to the question Who are you? - (I am) the Beginning. Also, Collosions 1:18, "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Also, John 1:1-3.

Augustine does not hesitate to affirm a reference to the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity in these first two verses of Genesis: "For, where Scripture says, In the beginning God made heaven and earth, we understand the Father in the name of God, and the Son in the name of the Beginning, Who is the beginning (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3) ... and, where Scripture says, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters, we see a full commemoration of the Trinity.

2. Augustine believed all that was created was created in a moment, in the Beginning. Thus the "days" of creation are for narrative purposes only.

3. The Biblical account references form and matter and light. Augustine does not believe there was a pre-existent formless matter because everything was created at once. The narrative does separate form and matter and light has the preeminent place. John 1:9

"But if the light which first was ordered to be made and was made is also to be understood as holding the pre-eminent place in creation, this is intellectual life, which, unless it should be turned to the Creator in order to be enlightened, would fluctuate formlessly."

Augustine believed the light of the first 3 days was a spiritual light.

Reference: https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/ar ... logy0.html

Falco,
i’m glad, in spite of some early bumps, you decided to contribute here/this forum. all topics.

[temporal1]

But why would an ark be needed when just migration on land would be much simpler?

Because one might fall off the end of the earth ?

Due to the principles of hydrogeology, a flood on a flat earth would require perimeter containment with limited aqueous permeability, which in turn restricts the opportunity of pedestrians to perambulate beyond their appointed bounds.

Extra credit for Gene-worthiness.

[Falco Underhill]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested, here is an article from the ISBE, published around 1930?

Astronomy, III
III. Physiography.
1. The Circle of the Earth:
It has generally been assumed that the Hebrews considered the earth to be a vast circular plain, arched over by a solid vault--"the firmament"--above which were stored, as if in cisterns, the "treasuries" (Job 38:22) of the rain, snow and hail, and some writers have even attempted to express this supposed conception in diagrammatic form. One of the best of these attempts, reproduced below, is given by Schiaparelli, in his Astronomy in the Old Testament.

But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the Old Testament. The same word (chagh) used in the Old Testament to express the roundness of the heavens (Job 22:14) is also used when the circle of the earth is spoken of (Isa 40:22), and it is likewise applied to the deep (Pr 8:27). Now it is obvious that the heavens are spherical in appearance, and to an attentive observer it is clear that the surface of the sea is also rounded. There is therefore no sufficient warrant for the assumption that the Hebrews must have regarded the earth as flat.

(1) The Earth a Sphere.
Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

(2) The North Stretched Out over Empty Space.
Here the "north" signifies the northern circumpolar constellations and the writer recognized that they stretch out beyond the utmost confines of the earth; so that he was not under any impression that the heavens rested upon the earth, or were borne up by mountains. The celestial sphere surrounded the earth entirely, but at a distance from it; between the two there was "empty space." Some commentators have indeed claimed that Job 26:10, "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness" is equivalent to a statement that the circumference of the terrestrial plain extended to the place where sea and sky met. But no man of intelligence can, at any time, have supposed that the sea horizon marked the dividing line between day and night, and the meaning of the passage is correctly given in the King James Version, "until the day and night come to an end"; in other words, the waters of the sea will be confined to their appointed place never again to overflow the earth so long as the succession of day and night shall continue (compare Ge 8:22; 9:15).

(3) The Corners of the Earth.
See EARTH, CORNERS OF THE.

2. The Pillars of the Earth:
erets, "the earth," is in general the surface of the earth, the dry land inhabited by man and beast. Hence "the pillars" of the earth (Job 9:6) are the rocks that bear up that surface, for as has been shown, it was quite clear to the author of the Book of Job, and to the primitive astronomers, that our world was unsupported in space. For "Vault of the Earth" see EARTH, VAULT OF.

3. The Firmament:
(1) The Hebrew Conception.
Above the, spherical earth was stretched out the "firmament" (raqia`) made on the second day of creation to "divide the waters from the waters" (Ge 16:1-16). To the Hebrews the "firmament" was the apparent void above, in which clouds float and the lights of heaven pursue their appointed paths. The word raqia`, by its etymology, suggests an expanse, something stretched, spread or beaten out, as when Isaiah (Ge 40:22) says that the Lord "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." But the Greek word stereoma, by which the Septuagint rendered raqia`, gives the meaning of a firm and solid structure, and our translators have carried out this same idea in their English rendering of "firmament."

(2) The Alexandrian Conception.
In this however the Septuagint simply expressed the astronomical science of their day as accepted in Alexandria, where the doctrine of a succession of solid crystalline spheres, each carrying a planet, held currency. But in order to express the Hebrew idea, raqia` should be rendered "expanse" or "space"; it corresponds to the "empty space" of Job 26:7. This "expanse" was appointed to divide "the waters which were under the expanse, from the waters which were above the expanse"; and it has been argued from this that the upper waters must have been regarded as being enclosed in a watertight reservoir, furnished with sluices or floodgates, which could be opened to allow the rain to fall.

4. The Windows of Heaven:
Thus in the account of the Flood, "the windows of heaven" are said to have been opened. But, 'arubbah, "window," means a network, or lattice, a form which can never have been ascribed to a literal floodgate; and in the other passages where "the windows of heaven" are mentioned the expression is obviously metaphorical (2Ki 7:2,19; Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10).

Silent, I appreciate this, especially the distinction you made between "firmament" and "expanse," which is helpful.

[Wayne in Maine]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested, here is an article from the ISBE, published around 1930?

The author was apparently unfamiliar with actual ancient Hebrew writings that clearly indicate that they interpreted the Physical shape of the earth to be flat with a solid dome over it. There were debates among ancient scholars about the thickness and composition of the raqia, and whether the sun went under the earth to return to the other side, or around its edge. His Astronomy article is a good attempt to interject a modern view of the Universe into the Bible, but it is not consistent with the understanding of those ancient biblicists whose native language was Hebrew in pre-scientific times.

I had studied this issue quite extensively and had wished that the age of the universe and the narrative of of the flood could be reconciled with scientific conclusions through a reasonable interpretation of the language of Genesis, but facts lead me to too many dead ends.

[silentreader]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested, here is an article from the ISBE, published around 1930?

The author was apparently unfamiliar with actual ancient Hebrew writings that clearly indicate that they interpreted the Physical shape of the earth to be flat with a solid dome over it. There were debates among ancient scholars about the thickness and composition of the raqia, and whether the sun went under the earth to return to the other side, or around its edge. His Astronomy article is a good attempt to interject a modern view of the Universe into the Bible, but it is not consistent with the understanding of those ancient biblicists whose native language was Hebrew in pre-scientific times.

I had studied this issue quite extensively and had wished that the age of the universe and the narrative of of the flood could be reconciled with scientific conclusions through a reasonable interpretation of the language of Genesis, but facts lead me to too many dead ends.

I guess your mind is closed. There is no point in continuing this, I am completely flabbergasted by the position you are taking.
Blessings in your journey.

[Wayne in Maine]

Just on the off chance that anyone is interested, here is an article from the ISBE, published around 1930?

The author was apparently unfamiliar with actual ancient Hebrew writings that clearly indicate that they interpreted the Physical shape of the earth to be flat with a solid dome over it. There were debates among ancient scholars about the thickness and composition of the raqia, and whether the sun went under the earth to return to the other side, or around its edge. His Astronomy article is a good attempt to interject a modern view of the Universe into the Bible, but it is not consistent with the understanding of those ancient biblicists whose native language was Hebrew in pre-scientific times.

I had studied this issue quite extensively and had wished that the age of the universe and the narrative of of the flood could be reconciled with scientific conclusions through a reasonable interpretation of the language of Genesis, but facts lead me to too many dead ends.

I guess your mind is closed. There is no point in continuing this, I am completely flabbergasted by the position you are taking.
Blessings in your journey.

My mind is not closed. I want authenticity, not blind speculation in support of dogma. What you posted is entirely inadequate proof that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth with an atmosphere and no dome over it. Their own writings contradict what you posted. Is you mind closed?