Biblical Cosmology

I hear so many monotheists, particularly Christians exclaim how much is proven in their bible. Some of the history and events particularly, and because it is shown that these things actually did happen it validates to them the accuracy of the bible.

Yet, what about biblical cosmology? LINK

If the authors of the bible, or if the actual author was indeed God, then why is biblical cosmology wrong in light of modern discoveries? Why is biblical cosmology on par with pagan cosmology? If biblical cosmology is wrong, then how accurate really is the bible? They got cosmology wrong and they got a world wide flood wrong. They also seemed to have gotten the age of the universe wrong, they left out the dinosaurs and many other things. Yet, everything is on par with what was thought back then in ancient times.

I understand some Christians take the scriptures as symbolic and open to interpretation, but doesn't God say that his word is his word and not open to interpretation?

Explain what you mean by cosmology. Where has science proven anything that is different than what is said in the Bible.

Science has a lot of theory's. That's about it.

reply to post by dakota1s2


I provided a link for further clarification. What's described in the bible is not what we see. If what's described is not what is seen, then that aspect is wrong.

You have to remember, that it is faith on their part, so proof is not needed. Look at the history in the US, you call yourself a Christian and you can get elected and start wars any where is the world and "GOD" is on our side!

Tru

You are assuming that what is written in the Bible is all there is to know.

Closer to the truth is that what is written in the Bible is all that God wants us to know - for right now.

i.e. where the ancient biblical people went to use the restroom - for example - isn't mentioned IN the Bible, but yet I think we can all assume they indeed "went", and probably had designated areas/resources for this function.

i.e.e. just because something isn't mentioned IN the Bible does not constitute non existence.

I think you are using your 'mankind' mind again - assuming that we, as "mankind", know everything there is to know about the earth, the Bible, God, Jesus, and mankind - by what's written in the Bible.

When in fact, I'm sure there are probably a gazillion bazillion things that aren't in the Bible that we don't know - and won't, for right now while in this world.

You need to understand that God created our planet, Earth, and us - but He also created billions of other universes, as science proves these billions of universes exists. We - us, earth, mankind - are so tiny compared to what is probably "out there". Don't be so full of pride to assume that "mankind" is all there is to this world. It's not.

Physics Link

reply to post by nomorecruelty


I fail to see how this is pertinent to the fact that biblical cosmology is wrong in light of the other assumed fact that the word of god is infallible. If God's word is true and his holy scripture written through divine inspiration by himself, then the cosmology described should be exactly what we see and not exactly what pagan mythology describes.

reply to post by sirnex


If you fail to see, then I can't help you to see it any clearer.

Cosmology is the study of the galaxies/stars/universe - which God created.

So I would be more apt to start at the 'source' rather than to dwell on anything that 'mankind' has created to try to explain away creation.


Just my two cents.

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Read the link and stop tooling around. The cosmology described according to the infallible word of God is not the what we see and you know damn well what I mean by that. So please, cut the BS and either argue the point or shove off.

reply to post by sirnex


I think I AM making a great argument?

Cosmology is but one more 'manmade' propaganda tool that will not be used in numerous atheist/non believer forums across the internet.

You asked for debate - I gave it. Just because you don't "like" the content of my "debate" shouldn't be an issue.

???

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Your not actually debating the point that I am making. What you are doing is purposefully arguing nothing really. Everything you've said hasn't been on the issue of what is described in the bible compared to what is seen today, which is the point I am arguing. So if you have no interest in arguing in context to the original point that was made which is clearly laid out and discussed, then I see no real reason for you to be spouting nothing as an argument, which technically isn't an argument. Use your head boy.

And I did read the page - and to me, my opinion, it's more of the typical "let's try to find holes/mistakes/errors in the Bible"article than anything else.


It talks about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah - and how there is evidence that the sulphur came from below the earth - but this video proves otherwise.

It's a site of "opinions" without much "proof".

reply to post by nomorecruelty


I'm not making any points about the cities or any theories pertinent to those theories as I clearly described a concern about the cosmology as described by the bible compared to what is seen. Again I must stress my concern that you should, granted if intelligent enough to comprehend what was initially written, *should* know what I was alluding to.

If you have no argument against it nor any desire to debate the issue, then that is fine. What I won't tolerate is purposeful stupidity for the sake of being stupid. You either have something to say on point to what I am discussing, or you don't.

reply to post by sirnex


Ok, you give a link to a site - I go and I read the page from the link you provided. A part of it discusses Sodom and Gomorrah -

I tried to discuss Sodom and Gomorrah.

You call me out.

Apparently my response wasn't to your liking - so I have to
assume you are looking for a "certain" type of response.


Ok, I'll leave you to continue attempting to debunk the Bible,
the universe and God.

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Please debate in context with the original point as detailed in this post: LINK

I understand if you have nothing of value to add in regards to the point originally detailed and discussed and this is possibly a good reason that your intentionally bringing up something that has nothing to do with what I originally was discussing.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
And I did read the page - and to me, my opinion, it's more of the typical "let's try to find holes/mistakes/errors in the Bible"article than anything else.


It talks about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah - and how there is evidence that the sulphur came from below the earth - but this video proves otherwise.

It's a site of "opinions" without much "proof".

Ron Wyatt as proof? Bad choice .....it’s not a good sign when even Answers In Genesis refutes his work.
www.answersingenesis.org...

Answers in Genesis did not attempt to involve itself in checking any of the other claims, but someone who had been with Wyatt to his `Sodom and Gomorrah' site10 sent us samples he had from there of the alleged ash from a couple of the `buildings,' and a sulfur ball.11 The photos show the structures at `Sodom and Gomorrah,' together with the labels put on them by Wyatt. Simple visual inspection of such photos (and watching videos put out by these `amazing discoverers') strongly suggests that these `building ruins' are soft sedimentary structures with some lamination, carved into an array of shapes by rain and wind.

To put it mildly, the claim that such structures would form from incinerated buildings, then survive in the open for thousands of years, defies understanding of basic scientific principles (not to mention common sense).

Nevertheless, we sent the samples for chemical analysis to a reputable Australian laboratory.12 Their report was interpreted by a Ph.D. geochemist.13 The existence of the sulfur ball is not surprising-the entire area is rich in natural sulfur. The results from the `ash' (see chart below, right) were not consistent with what would be expected from incinerated ancient buildings, or rock ash of any sort. Instead, they clearly indicated an [evaporite] deposit of gypsum-type minerals. This crumbly, easily eroded material fully explains the visual impressions, and is consistent with the known features of this area. The chemistry also shows an abundance of carbonates, which would be broken down by heat.14 ......

The remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah? The ‘discoverers’ featured in our article have persuaded a number of people unfamiliar with basic geology that the larger picture at left is the city of Gomorrah, above middle is a ‘ziggurat,’ and the right image a ‘sphinx.’ However, the truth is less spectacular. In this Dead Sea area (near Masada), there are many soft, evaporite deposits like this, which can easily be shaped by the action of wind and rain. Not only has on-site geological analysis shown this to be the case—lab testing of alleged ‘ash’ samples (see below) definitively confirms that these are not ‘burnt buildings’ (see main text).

Sorry for not being 100% on topic.

Suppose the bible's word is good enough for life but not enough
for government work.
A reverse of an old saying by government or by those in government
contracts that their work was good enough for government work.
The government and science can go back and change all estimates.
The bible can't and doesn't care as once revelation occurred 2000
years ago the job was over.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

i.e. where the ancient biblical people went to use the restroom - for example - isn't mentioned IN the Bible, but yet I think we can all assume they indeed "went", and probably had designated areas/resources for this function.

Actually, it IS mentioned in the Bible. No foolin. Deuteronomy 23:12-14

I wish you had pointed which ones were more important to ya 'cause I could spend all day talking about these (in a civil manner).

Genesis Chapter 1 contains contradictions in terminology: Verses 6, 14, 20, 24, and 26 imply creation by word -- God spoke the universe into existence. Verses 7, 16, 21, 25,and 27 imply creation by action -- God physically made the world.

v6 God said, God did, "and it was so". Just as if I said, "I'm gonna make some tea." I went and brewed some tea. And there it was. I said, I did, "and it was so." I'll assume the others follow in stride.

One biblical commentary explains that the Hebrew word translated as "firmament" is a beating out of a plate of metal. This formed a vault over the ocean that supported the weight of the water above the vault.

Firmament in Hebrew raqiya, "visible arch of the sky". Anyone ever see the scientific model of the universe? It's one MIGHTY ball, made up of a lot of arc, or if ya like "arches." Raqiya is derived from raqa meaning "to spread out", analogous to "hammered". Have ya'll head of the Big Bang Theory? That's one MIGHTY hammer! And the universe is actually still being hammered out as it's still expanding.

This is a passage from the story of the great flood of Noah. It was derived from an earlier Pagan Babylonian myth of a great flood."

Okay here I'll tackle the "Pagan" thingy. Who's to say that the Hebrews took it from the Babylions? The Babs could have just as easily taken it from the Hebrew oral legends. And what about the Cherokee, the Sioux and all the other NA's? Did they get their flood "myth" from the Babs too? Hmmmm, something must be going on here if the "tale" is told all around the world and yet there had not been any contact between the 2 different continents.

The author(s) of Genesis believed that the floodgates were physically closed, the rain stopped and the flood drained away.

I always love these inferences here....how DO you know what the authors of Genesis believed? Did you read their minds? ("You" being meant in a generalized plurality, not anyone in particular.) And how do you know that there aren't floodgates up there in a parallel universe that can affect our rainfall? Anyways, it's pretty much like us saying "I believe you with all my heart." or "The sun 'rises' in the east."

A later text (3 Baruch 3:7) describes how the Tower was eventually built.

A later text? I thought we were talking the Bible here, the "accepted" books by the forefathers.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." ...The tremendous pressure exerted by the dislodged mass forced the underlying oil and gas up

Don't discount this, if I remember right, there was a volcano somewhere in the vicinity at one time. Could be remembering wrong about that, but a volcano would do the same thing. And God does work miracles. They know there was a fire there, but they've not proven that it all came from the ground. But most likely, it spouted into the air before it "rained" back down, like a geyser, just like a geyser. God uses whatever He wants to use and how He wants to use it.

Angels were using the ladder to travel from Heaven to earth and back. God appeared above the top of the ladder, and talked to Joseph. As in the account of the Tower of Babel, heaven is here portrayed as being only a short distance above the earth -- a location reachable by ladder.

It's a dream for goodness sakes!! Come on, give me a break!

Continued.....

This is getting too long, I'll just hit a few highlights...

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies...." Here, the sun was believed to have stopped moving. This speaks again of a stationary earth and moving sun. The moon also stopped moving.

Again, the Western Hemisphere has a few tribes/nations that have the story about "the day that almost didn't come". God invented science, He works it how He wants.

"God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven." The earth is viewed as having ends, unlike a sphere which has no end and no beginning.

Hebrew "earth" here in the verse is erets meaning "ground, field, land" which does indeed have ends where it meets the water.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." In the Hebrew cosmology, the earth is supported by columns. The next logical question is what bears the weight of the column, earth and firmament? Job seems to imply that there is nothing to support the earth. God hung the world, its columns, the firmament and heaven on nothing.

Ever hear of the tectonic plates? And there are those who believe in the "hollow earth". But it's pretty odd that Job would know that the northern quarter (using the Hebrew translation of "north) of the earth was an empty space.

The Psalms contain numerous references to: God being in heaven.
Heaven being directly above the earth.
God seeing people below him, and hearing their prayers.
The earth being fixed, stable and immovable.

There are many heavens for the Jews (using Greek here), e.g. epouranios the skies, paradeisos Paradise (bosom of Abraham) and ouranis the abode of God. God is a spirit, He looks down on us, through us, beside us, etc. And the earth only moves on its axis about a degree, sounds pretty stable to me.

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." (KJV). Most Bible translations use the word "circle" to describe the shape of the earth. A circle is normally considered to be a two-dimensional shape.

(As for the previous ones on the page, let's just say we say the sun rises and sets. We don't say “Dear, let’s go watch the earth rotate 3 more degrees so that we can view the sun in its stationary place as the horizon lowers itself.....”.....oops, there’s no such thing as a true horizon either!)

Okay now to this one "circle" in Hebrew is translated from chuwg "circuit" If the earth was flat here, how could you make a straight line around the earth as the passage implies? A circuit has to connect at the ends and you can't do that on a flat plane, only on a sphere (or cone/cylinder for those who are as picky as these people are) can you do that.

The last parts are referring to visions. Visions, people, are not to be taken literally but figuratively.

Any more questions?