For those who have done
research on the Flat Earth Society and found their website, you may
have walked away thinking, “These people are not serious!” or
other such thoughts. Well, you are right, as they are the controlled
opposition.
The Flat Earth Society
is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and
satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been
doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a
suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas'
University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate
subject of our flat Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat
Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which,
still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and
treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.
In 1956 a genuine
truth-seeker and flat-Earth researcher, Samuel Shenton, had started
the IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society) and was making
quite an impact with his publications and interviews, revealing the
truth of our flat Earth to the masses. The globalists attempted to
ignore the threat posed by Shenton for over a decade before finally
creating their competing, farcical controlled opposition FES (Flat
Earth Society) which has spent the past 45 years steering all
flat-Earth inquiry into the realms of satire and sarcasm.
To give an idea of how
the controlled opposition works, consider the example of Leo
Ferrari's pumpkin-sized rock he would always take during interviews
and lectures claiming he brought the stone back from the edge of our
flat Earth! He would say, with a huge smirk on his face, how his boat
had fallen over the edge but he was luckily saved by hanging onto
this rock. Clearly, treating our flat Earth in this tongue-in-cheek
way discouraged people from taking the matter seriously.
Ferrari's entire
schtick involved approaching the flat Earth subject from every angle
EXCEPT the rational and scientific. For example, he published a
series of articles including "The Global Fallacy as a Cause of
Racial Prejudice," arguing that people in countries at the top
of the globe felt superior to those at the bottom, when in fact there
was no top or bottom to the world, so, "even if one assumed that
the world was spherical, the 'top' and 'bottom' have been arbitrarily
selected, resulting in racial discrimination against those in the
south. How can the globularists, their hirelings and dupes, seriously
claim to believe that all men are created equal when they teach that
some men are eternally fated to hang like bats from the bottom of a
globe on which other men stand upright? The only solution is a flat
Earth!" So instead of presenting measurements or experiments,
instead of presenting any proofs or evidence, Ferrari would often
simply argue the flat Earth as a serendipitous satirical solution to
social problems.
In a famous 1971 CBC
interview Ferrari was asked, "how do you explain the fact that
the Earth appears round in the pictures taken from space by the
astronauts?" Instead of answering and addressing the clear
photo-trickery involved, Ferrari replied, "Simple. No doubt
you're familiar with Einstein's theory of the curvature of space. If
space is curved - and modern physics is based on that assumption -
the Earth, from space, would appear circular. It's a simple optical
illusion." This convoluted, pandering answer really is no answer
at all and serves only to make the listener cock their head and raise
an eyebrow.
Around this time,
Charles K. Johnson, another genuine flat-Earther, took over the IFERS
from the recently deceased Shenton. He and his wife Marjory, along
with being flat-Earthers, were also vegetarians and
anti-vivisectionist activists who campaigned for better treatment of
our animal friends. In 1974, when Johnson heard of Ferrari's budding
organization, he decided to contact him and wrote a cordial letter
requesting further information about his society, to which Ferrari
never replied. Two years later Johnson wrote another polite letter
saying, how he was "delighted by the prospect of a like-minded
campaigner," and said how it was "a very happy day"
when he learned of Ferrari's society. "I feel sure at the core
we can't be too far apart in aims," Johnson wrote, "I do
try to practice what I preach, to think and seek and search out
reasonable ideas and concepts." He closed saying that "he
could hardly wait" to hear from Ferrari and hoped very much he
would please reply. After six months without a response, Johnson
wrote one more time, explaining again his sole purpose to "enlarge
his view" and "getting and holding onto the facts,"
which would benefit himself, and in time, the rest of the world. He
requested a reply and a copy of Ferrari's FES magazine. In conclusion
Johnson signed "thanks from the bottom of my heart," in
advance, but warned that if Ferrari insisted on ignoring him once
again, "I will then know for sure you are some kind of enemy of
the Flat Earth work." Eventually Ferrari did reply this time,
but not with a message or magazine as requested, he simply enclosed a
FES paid-application form.
Johnson investigated
Ferrari's organization further and found that he was using "the
flat earth idea as a gimmick to entertain and promote the atheistic
society." From then on, Johnson worked hard to expand his IFERS
and constantly for the rest of his life exposed Ferrari's FES,
calling him a "false prophet guilty of muddying the waters of
truth." Near the end of his life, tragically Johnson's house
burned down along with all the flat Earth materials he and Shenton
had collected over their lifetimes. Until his dying day, Johnson
claimed the fire to be the result of arson by a NASA agent he had
seen snooping around.
Nowadays the IFERS has
disappeared and only Ferrari's FES exists as a website and message
board maintained by moderators who, following in the footsteps of
Ferrari, make a mockery of the whole thing and turn every thread into
a joke deterring any serious flat Earth researcher from pursuing
further. The only redeeming aspect of their website is the library of
other people's flat Earth material they maintain, which is actually
quite good. The current President, Daniel Shenton, (coincidentally NO
relation to the genuine flat-Earther and IFERS founder Samuel
Shenton) can be heard in the following clip, still "muddying the
waters of truth," with several false flat Earth arguments (in
the previous Post):
Notice he says he is
"not sure about the Sun, Moon and planets, but that they're
probably spheres, but it's definitely not proven, I think." He
flip-flops his answers and expertly fumbles his words as if
intentionally trying to sound scatter-brained. Compare and contrast
this shill with genuine flat Earth researchers like myself who will
tell you unequivocally that the Sun, Moon, stars and "planets"
are all merely luminaries, round discs of celestial light, NOT
spherical terra firma capable of landing on as the Freemasons at
NASA would have you believe. He then goes on saying "the effects
of gravity, I feel, could be simulated by the disc Earth moving
upwards, accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second, would have
the same effects of what people traditionally think of as gravity."
This ridiculous false flat-Earth argument also appears on Wikipedia
and the FES homepage. It is provably wrong as the "upwards
accelerating disc" would smash into all helicopters, planes and
hot-air balloons making sustained flight of any kind impossible, but
they purposely promote these straw-man arguments so flat Earth
neophytes will rightly laugh off their dumb explanations, and then
following suit, write off the entire subject.
To combat Ferrari's
Flat Earth Society controlled opposition forum, and in memory of
Samuel Shenton, Charles Johnson, and other true flat Earth
researchers of the past I have now started this website – that you
are now on.
If you would like to make a donation to help getting out the flat earth truth, it would be much appreciated.
To prove that a “
model" globe is to a double scale, measure from London to
Philadelphia on the first globe you see; the distance is 3.000 miles,
the space may be 2, 3 or more inches, say 3 inches
(perhaps a 1 foot
globe), then the scale is 1,000 miles to the inch ; let that answer
for the “ Northern Hemisphere”; now turn to the Southern, measure
again from C. G. Hope to C. Horn; only a fraction more space, but how
great the distance!! Captains tell me it is 9,500 miles, this is the
least distance; I have heard as high as 12,000 miles; call it 9,000;
then the scale is 1,000 miles to the inch (the journey in question
being a certain number of degrees out of the 360°, it must be
allowed that the balance of the measure round must be the complement,
and to the same scale), ergo. Northern Hemisphere 1,000 miles to the
inch, Southern, 3,000 miles to the inch ! Everything in the way as a
model or a plan, made to a double scale, is a folly and a fraud. Try
the plan of a house and see for yourselves.
The surface of all
water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides,
earthquakes, etc., is perfectly level. The sense of sight proves this
to every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. Can any so-called
scientist, who teaches that the Earth is a whirling globe, take a
heap of liquid water, whirl it round, and so make rotundity ? He
cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an Ocean is a
whirling round section of a globular earth, rushing through “space”
at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.
When a youth, I stood
upon the Dover shore of the English Channel, and was told to watch a
departing ship. “There she goes; down, down, down! The hull has
disappeared! She is out of sight! Now, my boy, you have had an ocular
demonstration that the world is round (meaning globular in shape) AND
SEEING IS BELIEVING.” I walked up to an “ old salt” who had a
telescope, and said : “ Can you see that big ship through your
glass that’s gone down the Channel, and is now out’ of sight?”
“ Yes, my son, look !” The big ship immediately came into view
again, as I peered through the old sailor’s glass ! “ Why ! My
----- told me the Earth was round, because that ship I can now see
had turned down over the horizon!’’ “ Aha! Aha! sonny, I know
they all says it ! Now, I have been all over the world, but I never
believed it. But, then, I have no learning, only my senses to rely
upon, and I says SEEING IS BELIEVING.”
I now, after many
years, endorse the old sailor’s experience, that the world is not a
globe, and I have never found the man who could prove by any
practical demonstration that he, or I, are living on a whirling ball
of Earth and water !
How is it that the
atmosphere goes round with it? By what law does the Earth and the
rare air rush around together? Declare, ye scientists, IF YOU KNOW!
The Scriptures of God’s inspired Prophets contradicts the
unreasonable, illogical, unscientific delusion, and false philosophy,
that the jinxed Earth is a hollow fireball with several motions!
Knowing the
Flat Earth Truth Answers a Christian's Questions
I had been a Christian
all my life and it was just recently that I learned about the flat
earth. Before I learned about the geocentric model I had some
questions in the back of my mind. These unanswered questions did not
shake my faith in Christ but they were questions anyhow.
Some of the questions I
had were as follows:
“God must be busy in
some other part of the universe to know what is going on here.”
“I wonder if the
other intelligent life on other planets are free from sin?”
“If there are other
civilizations that have sin, how can their sins be washed away unless
God has more than one son?”
“Since we are told
that there was no death until there was sin by Adam, does that mean
there was no death on other planets?”
“If there was death
on other planets, then are they in some other time frame to explain
that?”
“Are we part Alien,
as claimed by people like David Icke? If so, where does that leave us
and the promises in the Bible that we are God's Children?”
“Would we still be
Yahweh, God's Children if we are DNA re-arrangement by some Alien
race?”
“In John 3:16, it
says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whoever believes on him shall not die but have ever-lasting
life. Then, how would others be saved on other planets? It means that
everyone else is without sin – if the Bible is true. Or, Yahwheh,
God has more than one Son, so wouldn't this be a conflict of
statement?”
“We are told that
Heaven is above us. So, is this meant figuratively or are we to
believe this literally?”
Of course, there are
other questions that could have been asked but I never thought of it
as I didn't take the other Bible verses literally (which we should
have in light of the geocentric model of the earth). One such verse I
didn't think of is that “everyone would see Christ coming on the
clouds.” Verses like that and without knowing about the flat earth
facts, I had to make this verse fit my belief. This is what we all
do, instead of thinking “outside of the box,” we do some mental
gymnastics to make everything fit. Of course, there are those who
simply lose faith, and this is sad.
With everyone seeing
Christ, I, personally just accepted this at face value and not tried
to figure out the mechanics of it. I believe that once you have this
attitude, you are better off. Your getting to Heaven does not depend
on you knowing all the answers in the Bible, you just have to know
the most important one, which is, “No one comes to God except
through Jesus Christ,” plain and simple.
As you can see, I had
some answered questions. Though this did not weaken my faith in God's
holy word, I just had some unanswered questions, which are now
answered now that I have stuided the flat earth information. I hope
you do, too.
Once you know about the
flat earth, the true nature of what stars and planets are, and that
there is a firmament or dome over the earth, then many of the above
questions are answered. For example, that we on earth are the only
people “out there,” (with the exception of Angels of the Heavenly
Host), you'll know that there are no other planets much less other
planets with ETs on them. So, this answers questions about sin,
Christ is the only Son of God, and that there are no other people to
be saved.
When we are told in the
Bible that “heaven is above” us, it has much more meaning than if
this is a universe with a billions light years of space all around
and that we live on a globe. For example, where would “above” be?
Would it be above Germany 500 million light years, or would it be
above Australia, which is “down under,” and 1 billion light years
away? Where would heaven be? And if God is there, He certainly would
not a personal God being so far away.
Where would “above”
be, going from the top of the planet, from the equator, or from “down
under”? And, how many light years “above” would that be, 1,000
or 1,565,000 light years? And, what galaxy would that be behind? And,
what constellation would that be behind? And, what planet would it be
on or be behind? This is not “above”!
Now, if Heaven is, say,
3,000 miles above and with us being on a flat earth, this “above”
is literally the same for everyone; then the words of God has much
more meaning. Of course, when the Bible was written the ancient world
believed in the flat earth and that we were the only ones here and
not aliens who could visit us and do us harm.
Click Here for another Issue of Earth Not a Globe Review
The inspired Psalmist
says that “ The heavens declare of glory of ( and the firmament
sheweth his handywork ”; therefore, whatever some professed
Christians affirm to the contrary, the subject of Creation is
connected with right views of God, his worship, and his glory. But if
we would have a right conception of God, and his glory, we must see
to it that we have a right conception of his works in Creation. How,
for instance, do we obtain an insight into the character of any great
man, whether he be a poet, politician, sculptor, general, or king ?
It is not by his acts, or his works? But suppose these acts, or
works, are misrepresented to us, or defaced by someone, should we not
have , false and distorted views respecting the author, artist, or
the maker of those things? Assuredly. And so it comes to pass in
respect to the construction of the world, false views of the universe
have led men into a misconception respecting the Character of God,
and even alas ! in many cases, to a denial of the very existence of
such a personal Being.
Let us, then, endeavour
to come back to first principles. The world exists, and must have
come from somewhere. It is “ unthinkable ” to say it came by
chance, or any “ fortuitous concourse of atoms.” Its wonderful
variety, the general co-relation and adaptability of its various
parts, and the exact and never failing motions of all the heavenly
bodies, prove, to any well-balanced and unprejudiced mind, that some
grand and controlling Intelligence directs and rules over all. As the
apostle Paul declares, “ The invisible things of Him from the
creation to the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead : so that
they are without excuse.” Rom. 1:20.
A grand truth lies in
this statement of the apostle. Paul was no fool. It is allowed on all
sides, alike by friend and foe, Sceptic and Christian, M. Renan and
the Archbishop of Canterbury, that no one man has had more influence
in forming Christianity, the history of which has for eighteen
centuries been making the history of the civilized world, than the
apostle Paul. His name will be had in honour when the names of the
adversaries of the truth will have sunk into merited and everlasting
oblivion. And this great man agrees with the Psalmist in teaching
that the Creation, as set forth in the Bible, and as found in what
some call “ Nature,” sets forth unmistakably the grand truth that
God is. Now, this is a fundamental verity, and the foundation of all
true faith, G o d i s . And “ he that cometh to God must believe
that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek
Him.” Now, this faith is, on the one hand, neither an unreasoning
credulity, nor, on the other hand, is it a bigoted (/belief. It is
based on an intelligent and reasonable understanding of the things
that are seen above and around us.
The Book of Nature is
open to all men; but it must be read and studied without prejudice
and without philosophical bias. We must come to it like little
children, with the honest desire to know the truth, and not attempt
to read into it our own, nor any one else’s, plausible or
implausible hypotheses. If we do this patiently and persistently, we
shall be “ rewarded ” : the grand and ineffaceable truth will
dawn upon us that God is.
We shall see His glory
in the bright and blazing sun as he goes forth majestically, like a
giant, to run his daily course. We shall own His Power and Godhead
when the moon, queen of the night, rises in quiet and stately
splendour, to reflect her silver radiance in every rippling stream.
And we shall confess His wisdom and unfailing skill when, at night,
we gaze up into the firmament and behold ten thousand glittering
gems, shining in matchless beauty, and shedding upon the earth their
silent influences, as they nightly perform their appointed
revolutions.
“ The firmament
sheweth His handiwork.’’ That vast and incomparable structure
which spans the heavens, and covers the earth with its capacious
dome, divides the waters which are “ above” the firmament from
the waters which are “ under ” the firmament. And when we realize
something of the tremendous size of this tent-like covering, spanning
with one mighty arch across the whole of the outstretched earth ;
when we considered its weight, its strength, its stability, and the
avowed purpose for which it was made by the Creator, we can
unhesitatingly and devoutly again exclaim with the Psalmist, “The
firmament sheweth His handiwork.”
No wonder such a “
work ” occupied the whole of one day, the third, in the “ great
and marvellous ” work of the six days Creation. Job, one of the
finest, and certainly one of the most ancient, of true philosophers,
when comparing the works of God with the puny works of man, asks : “
Hast thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a
molten lo o k in g glass ? ” Job 37 ; 18. It is, perhaps, this
mirror-like quality which the firmament possesses that makes
unbelieving “ scientists ” think that they can, with their
glasses, peer into what they call “ space,” which they affirm to
be “ boundless.” As well might a child, gazing upon the bosom of
a glassy lake, affirm that it had no bottom, and that the sky and
clouds, reflected from its placid surface, were slumbering in the
unfathomed depths below, and not above, its waters.
The idea of unlimited
“space,” filled with an infinity of revolving worlds or globes,
is not only a bewildering idea, unfounded on fact, but it directly
tends to remove the Creator, or rather the idea of a Creator, far,
and farther, away from this earthly plane of ours. It necessarily and
logically leads to Atheism; and too often, alas! it practically leads
men there. The idea of Heaven as a place, the abode of The Eternal,
becomes to the logical and thinking Newtonian a 7nyth and God, if he
acknowledge such a personal Being at all, becomes farther and farther
removed from the scene of all earthly operations. Whereas the Saviour
of the World, who “ came down from Heaven,” to do his Father’s
will, taught His disciples to believe that Heaven was not very far
off; that it was directly and always “ above ” u s ; that God was
concerned in the work of His hands; and that as “our Father,” He
was near enough to hear the prayers of all those who call upon him in
sincerity and truth. This is assuring : this is comforting. God cares
for the world ; and He will punish those who afflict mankind with
their selfishness, their greed, their falsehoods, and their
oppressions. Yea, God has “ so loved the world”—not the “
globe,” as some misguided Christians have lately printed and
perverted this sublime text with a ridiculous “ globe” stamped on
the paper—God “ so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
everlasting life.” This, we say, is comforting. It is assuring.
But, on the astronomical hypothesis, the world is like an uncared-for
orphan, or a desolate wanderer: God is removed too far from us to be
any practical use; and the idea of Heaven is so vague, that such a
place, if it exist at all, may be anywhere or nowhere; “all round
the globe;” or spirited away from us altogether, “beyond the
bounds of time and space.” Thus the Christian’s hope is
undermined, and his faith is eaten away at the very core by this
insidious and so-called “ scientific” worm. This is most
calamitous ; yet even some of our “ spiritual guides ” are either
so false to their professions, or are so deceived themselves, that
they cry out, “ It does not matter what shape the earth is ; we
don’t care whether it be round or flat, square or oblong, so long
as ’—yes, so long as they get a good “ living,” and hold a
respectable position in society ? Is this it ? Such a confession
really means, when put into plain language, We do not care whether
the Bible be true or false, in its record of Creation, so long as our
interests or our hope of “ Salvation ” is assured. But “ woe ”
is pronounced against such easy going shepherds of Israel. “ Woe”
to them who are leaving their flocks to become a prey to the
devouring wolves of “ Science, ” “ falsely so called,” as the
great apostle intimates. Let us be on our guard. There are honourable
exceptions to such false shepherds and teachers, and others are being
raised up to warn us. We have quoted some of their noble testimonies.
Let us give heed to these needful warnings. God has never left
Himself without witnesses to His Truth whether in Nature or in
Revelation. We may shew this, if the Lord permit, more fully another
time as regards Creation truth. In conclusion, we would call the
attention of all our readers to the seasonable warning given us by
the Apostle Paul, where he says;— ‘‘ Beware lest any man spoil
you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,” Col. 2 :
8. And again, Let us “ prove all things ; and hold fast that which
is good.”
Why
Don’t Christians Embrace the Bible’s Flat Earth Teachings?
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He
has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou
hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has
fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou
didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be
shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who
made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
The
Three-Story Universe
From N. F. Gier, God,
Reason, and the Evangelicals
(University Press of
America, 1987), chapter 13.
Copyright held by
author
Author’s Note: Full
bibliographical information for references will be supplied at a
later date.
Until then please
check the full bibliography of the hard copy of God, Reason, and the
Evangelicals.
A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF
THE ANCIENT WORLD
Many evangelicals
believe in “detailed inerrancy,” which means that the Bible, in
the words of Francis Schaeffer, is “without error in all that it
affirms” and contains “propositional true truth where it touches
the cosmos and history.”(1) This in all probability was not the
position of historical Christianity and many evangelicals themselves
reject this position.
The inerrantists cannot
decide which “science” to use to prove that the Bible is without
error about cosmological matters. Following the lead of Charles Hodge
and B. B. Warfield, writers for the Moody Bible Institute contend
that the Bible is completely compatible with current theories about
the evolution of the universe over billions of years. (2) On the
other hand, we have “fiat creationists,” like those from the
Institute for Creation Research, who reject cosmic evolution and
maintain that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
Throwing intelligent
light on the question are the evangelical writers of the New Bible
Dictionary. An author warns us that the Genesis account “must not
be confused or identified with any scientific theory of origins. The
purpose of the biblical doctrine, in contrast to that of scientific
investigation, is ethical and religious….The whole is poetic and
does not yield to close scientific correlations….Genesis neither
affirms nor denies the theory of evolution, or any theory for that
matter.”(3) Evangelical J. J. Davis concurs: “Evangelicals have
generally come to adopt the position that the Genesis accounts of
creation are primarily concerned with the meaning and purpose of
God’s creative work and not with precise scientific details of how
it was accomplished….We look to the science of genetics to answer
the scientific question of when human life begins and to the Bible
for revelational answers concerning the value and purpose of human
life.”(4) Of course these evangelicals are correct in disclaiming
any scientific foundation for the cosmology of the Old Testament.
I believe, however,
that there is more than just poetry in the biblical creation account.
In what follows I argue that we should take the Hebrew cosmology as a
prescientific attempt to understand the universe. Parallel accounts
in other ancient mythologies will be the principal evidence I offer.
One of the first problems we have is that there is no word in Hebrew
for the Greek kosmos. Kosmos was first used by Pythagoras, who is
said to be the first Greek to conceive of the universe as a rational,
unified whole. Such a notion is crucial to the scientific idea that
things operate according to law-like regularity. For the Hebrews the
universe is not a kosmos, but a loose aggregate held together and
directed by God’s will.(5) If God’s will is free–this is an
assumption threatened in some evangelical doctrines of God–then the
results of such a will are not predictable events. This is why the
biblical idea of creation can never be called “scientific,” and
why “scientific creationism” will always be a contradiction in
terms.
1. THE FIRMAMENT AS THE
DOME OF HEAVEN
The most striking
feature of the Old Testament world is the “firmament,” a solid
dome which separates “the waters from the waters” (Gen. 1:6). The
Hebrew word translated in the Latin Vulgate as firmamentum is raqia’
whose verb form means “to spread, stamp or beat out.” The
material beaten out is not directly specified, but both biblical and
extrabiblical evidence suggests that it is metal. A verb form of
raqia’ is used in both of these passages: “And gold leaf was
hammered out…” (Ex. 39:3); and “beaten silver is brought from
Tarshish” (Jer. l0:9). There are indeed figurative uses of this
term. A firmament is part of the first vision of Ezekiel (1:22,26),
and the editors of the evangelical Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament cite this as evidence that the Hebrews did not believe in a
literal sky-dome. It is clear, however, that Ezekiel’s throne
chariot is the cosmos in miniature, and the use of raqia’ most
likely refers to a solid canopy (it shines “like crystal”) than
to a limited space.(6)
The idea of the dome or
vault of heaven is found in many Old Testament books, e.g., “God
founds his vault upon the earth…” (Amos 9:6). The Hebrew word
translated as “vault” is ‘aguddah whose verb form means to
“bind, fit, or construct.” Commenting on this verse, Richard
S. Cripps states that “here it seems that the ‘heavens’ are
‘bound’ or fitted into a solid vault, the ends of which are upon
the earth.” We have seen that raqia’ and ‘aguddah, whose
referent is obviously the same, mean something very different from
the empty spatial expanse that some evangelicals suggest.
In the Anchor Bible
translation of Psalm 77:18, Mitchell Dahood has found yet another
reference to the dome of heaven, which has been obscured by previous
translators. The RSV translates galgal as “whirlwind,” but
Dahood argues that galgal is closely related to the Hebrew gullath
(bowl) and gulgolet (skull), which definitely gives the idea of
“something domed or vaulted.” In addition, Dahood points out
that “the parallelism with tebel, ‘earth,’ and ‘eres,
‘netherworld,’ suggests that the psalmist is portraying the
tripartite division of the universe–heaven, earth, and
underworld.”(8)
Some evangelicals claim
that the Bible contains at least three references to a spherical
earth (Is. 40:22; Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27). But this is just wishful
thinking and an obvious imposition of modern cosmology on the Hebrew
world-view. The Hebrew word hug used here cannot be translated as
sphere (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be
interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth. Therefore I
follow the Anchor Bible translation of Is. 40:22: “God sits uponthe dome of the earth.”Job 22:14 says that God “walks
on the vault (hug) of heaven,” again suggesting something solid.
Hug can also refer to the circular perimeter of the sky-dome: “He
drew a circle (hug) on the face of the deep…and made firm the skies
above” (Prov. 8:27-28).
If some respond by
saying that all of this is just poetry, I believe that they are
incorrect for at least three reasons. There are many poetic images
of the sky and heaven, but the common thread which connects them is
the idea of a solid dome. In Isaiah 34 God is threatening the
nations, and at verse four he will make “the skies roll up like a
scroll” (and presumably causing a deluge like Noah’s). Job is put
in his place by reference to God’s mighty deeds: “Can you,
like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?” (37:18).
At Isaiah 40:22 the real “dome of the earth” (AB) is followed by
the poetic “he stretches out the heavens like a veil; he spreads
them like a tent to dwell in.” One of the psalmists also uses this
simile: “God has stretched out the heavens like a tent” (Ps.
104:2).
The second and most
conclusive reason for taking the Hebrew solid heaven literally is
that such a view was all over the ancient world of the time. We agree
with evangelical Joseph Dillow that we must use the doctrine of
“sharable implications,” which means that we cannot impute to
authors knowledge or experience which they could not possibly have
had. Dillow is wise enough to reject violations of this principle
like Harold Lindsell’s claim that Job 38:35 anticipates wireless
telegraphy; but he still believes, and this proves troublesome, that
the “Bible does provide a perfectly sound basis for understanding
not only religious truth but also physical processes.”(9) Contrary
to C.S. Lewis’ claim (see epigraph), the Hebrew world-view was not
a uniquely chosen one; and as the Hebrews were only religious, not
scientific innovators, we can assume that they borrowed much from
their neighbors.
The ancient Egyptians
thought that the sky was a roof supported by pillars. For the
Sumerians tin was the metal of heaven, so we can safely assume that
their metal sky-vault was made out of this material.(10) Dillow cites
this fact without realizing what this must mean for the Hebrew view
and his principle of sharable implications. In Homer the sky is a
metal hemisphere covering a round, flat, disc-like earth, surrounded
by water. The Odyssey and the Illiad speak alternatively of a
bronze or iron sky-vault.(11) For the ancient Greeks Anaximenes and
Empedocles, the stars are implanted in a crystalline sky-dome. At
Genesis 1:17 the stars are “set in” (as if implanted) in the
firmament.
In Celtic mythology the
father god’s skull is the dome of heaven, which echoes the Aryan
idea that the sky evolved from the head of the cosmic man Purusha and
therein dwelled the earliest Vedic gods (Rig-veda 10.90.14,16). The
fear of Chicken Little comes from this ancient cosmology: when
Alexander asked the Celtic leaders what they feared most, they
answered that they were afraid that the sky would fall on their
heads. In Manichean myths the sky was made from the skins of
defeated demons, echoing themes from the Babylonian Enuma Elish.(12)
In Zoroastrianism one finds a spherical earth, but one still enclosed
in a celestial shell of first stone then shiny metal.(13) In the
Finnish Kalevala the sky is made of the finest steel; and the ancient
Tibetans not only had a spherical earth surrounded by an iron heaven,
but also knew, amazingly enough, that the earth’s diameter was
about 7,000 miles.(14)
The final evidence I
draw from rabbinic accounts. In Nachmanides’ commentary on the
Torah, he quotes from the ancient rabbis: “The heavens were in a
fluid form on the first day, and on the second day they solidified.”
Another ancient rabbi said: “Let the firmament become like a plate,
just as you say in Ex. 39:3.” Nachmanides himself describes the
firmament as “an extended substance congealed water separating”
the waters from the waters.(15) Apart from the congealed water
thesis, a modern Jewish Bible scholar agrees with this
interpretation: “raqia’ suggests a firm vault or dome over the
earth. According to ancient belief, this vault which held the stars,
provided the boundary beyond which the Divine dwelt.”(16) As far as
I can ascertain, the idea of a spherical earth did not enter Jewish
thought until the Middle Ages. Simeon ben Zemah Duran (1361-1444),
for example, states: “This round world suspended in space and has
nothing to rest on except the breath of Torah study from the mouths
of students–just as a man may keep something up in the air by the
blowing of his breath.”(17)
1. THE PILLARS OF
HEAVEN AND EARTH
If we disengage
ourselves from our own world-view, we can appreciate the internal
logic of the Hebrew cosmology. If we are threatened by watery
chaos from all sides, then a solid sky would be needed to hold back
these ominous seas. If the sky is a solid dome, then it will need
pillars to support it. Furthermore, if the earth is a flat disc
floating on “the deep,” then it would make sense for it to have
some support to hold it in place. One finds the idea of physical
supports for heaven in most ancient mythology. One Vedic poet writes
of a god “by whom the awesome sky and earth were made firm, by whom
the dome of the sky was propped up”; and Varuna “pillared both
the worlds apart as the unborn supported heaven” (Rig-veda
10.121.5; 8.41.10). The cosmology of the ancient Arabians was a
little more advanced. Here we find a solid sky-dome which Allah holds
up by an act of will (Surah 2.22). That God “raised up the heavens
without pillars” (Surah 13.2) reveals at least two assumptions: (1)
that there was something solid to raise up; and (2) earlier views
used actual supports and not Allah’s direct will.
It is not surprising
then that one finds biblical references to the “pillars” or
“foundations” of the heaven and earth. In Job we find that
“the pillars of heaven tremble, are astounded at God’s rebuke”
(26:11). In 2 Samuel we also find that God’s anger makes
“the foundations of the heavens tremble” (22:8). God’s fury
also affects the pillars of the earth: “Who shakes the earth out
of its place, and its pillars tremble?” (Job 9:6); and “the
foundations of the world were laid bare at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the
blast of the breath of thy nostrils” (Ps. 18:15). There seems
to be a little confusion about where the pillars of heaven are
located. Generally, in the Bible and other ancient literatures,
distant mountains were the most likely candidates. But in one
passage at least we find that Yahweh has “laid the beams of his
heavenly chambers on the waters” (Ps. 104:3), i.e., the watery
chaos surrounding the flat disc of the earth.
In the Old Testament
God is portrayed as a cosmic architect. Isaiah asks: “Who has
measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the
heavens with a span?” (40:12). In Proverbs Yahweh “drew a
circle on the face of the deep…and marked out the foundations of
the earth…” (8:27-29). God challenges Job with the famous
question: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the
earth?…Who determined its measurements…or who stretched the line
upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone…”
(38:4)? Continuing the same theme, the psalmists ask: “Who
placed the earth upon its foundations lest it should ever quake?”
(Ps. 104:5, AB); and observe that “when the earth totters…it
is God who will steady its pillars” (Ps. 75:3, AB). Finally, in
1 Sam. 2:8 we find that “the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s
and on them he has set the world.”
Joseph Dillow responds
to these passages generally by saying that these are figures of
speech or phenomenological language. Specifically, he points out that
the Hebrew word used may indicate pillars which support nothing, but
this certainly does not preclude the “pillars of heaven” from
doing so. Dillow weakens his argument considerably when he admits
that “the ‘pillars of the earth’ are simply mountains, even
though long ago the Babylonians, and perhaps, the Hebrews, considered
them as supports for a metallic sky dome.”(18) Dillow believes that
Moses wrote the Pentateuch and he gives no credible argument why he
should have viewed the cosmos differently than his pagan
contemporaries. As we have shown above, the intellectual environment
of the priestly writers would have still favored a solid heaven in
need of support. Why should the Hebrews, who had no special expertise
in ancient science and who borrowed heavily in other areas, have had
a view different from other ancient peoples’? As we shall see in a
later section, Dillow claims that Moses accepted the ancient idea of
the “ocean of heaven.” It would appear certain that he would also
have accepted a sky-dome to support such a body of water. The logic
of such a cosmology is expressed well by a Vedic poet: “Water is up
there beyond the sky; the sky supports it” (Aitareya Upanishad
I.2).
THE WATERS ABOVE AND
BELOW
In her new translation
of the Rig-veda, Wendy O’Flaherty says that the ancient Hindus
believed that “the earth was spread upon the cosmic waters” and
that these primeval oceans “surrounded heaven and earth, separating
the dwelling-place of men and gods….”(19) After the sky fell in
on the Celts, the next event they feared was that the seas would come
rushing in from all directions.(20) In the Babylonian creation epic
Enuma Elish, the sky is made from the body of Tiamat, the goddess of
watery chaos. The victorious god Marduk splits “her like a
shellfish into two parts: half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky,
pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to allow not her
waters to escape.”
In Genesis 1:1 we find
the linguistic equivalent of Tiamat in the Hebrew word tehom (“the
deep”), and the threat of watery chaos is ever present in the
Old Testament. Evangelical F. F. Bruce agrees that “tehom is
probably cognate with Tiamat,” and Clark Pinnock admits that Yahweh
also “quite plainly…fought with a sea monster” and that the
model of the battle is a Babylonian one.(22) The psalmists describe
it in graphic terms: “By thy power thou didst cleave the
sea-monster in two, and broke the dragon’s heads above the waters;
thou didst crush the many-headed Leviathan, and threw him to the
sharks for food” (Ps. 74:13-14 NEB; cf. Job 3:8; Isa. 27:1).
The firmament
separates the waters from the waters, so that there is water
above the heavens (Ps. l48:4) and water below the earth. The Second
Commandment makes this clear: “You shall not make for yourself a
graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or
that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth…”(Deut. 5:8; cf. Ex. 20:4; Is. 51:6). The lower tier of
this three-story universe is identified as water in other passages:
“God spread out the earth upon the waters” (Ps. 136:6);
and “he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the
rivers” (Ps. 24:2). If the waters below the earth are simply
springs,(23) then one would have a hard time making sense of the
prohibition of making images of the mostly microscopic creatures
found in such waters. The biblical authors are definitely thinking of
the great fishes and monsters of “the deep” itself. The fertility
goddesses of the land and the seas were Yahweh’s principal rivals.
Some evangelicals claim
that the author of Job believed that the earth was suspended in empty
space: “The shades below tremble, the waters and their inhabitants.
Sheol is naked before God. He stretches out the north over the
void, and hangs the earth upon nothing” (26:5-7). The first
thing that can be said here is that the context is not one of God’s
creation (which comes next at vv. l0-l4 following the cosmology
above), but one of God’s threat of destruction. Second, none of the
ancients, except for possibly the Greek atomists, had any notion of
empty space. The Hebrew words for “void” and “nothingness”
have parallel uses in many Old Testament passages and generally refer
to a watery chaos (Gen. 1:1; Jer. 4:23; Is. 40:17, 23). Therefore we
must conclude, as does Marvin H. Pope, that Job does not have the
Pythagorean notion of the earth suspended in space.(24) Oceans, not
empty space, surround the Hebrew world.
Although it sounds odd
at first, the rabbinic idea that the sky-dome was made of congealed
water makes eminent sense in terms of creation out of watery chaos.
This doctrine, and not creatio ex nihilo, is the prima facie
implication of Genesis 1:1; and the scholarly consensus is that this
initial impression is indeed correct.(25) Hebrews 11:3–“that
which is seen was made out of things which do not appear”–has
been used for centuries as the main scriptural support for creation
out of nothing. G. W. Buchanan has now shown that this was very
tenuous indeed: “The author’s concern for the unseen was not
primarily that which was invisible or intangible, but that which was
future, that which had not yet happened. It was a concept of time
rather than of substance or essence.”(26) One passage is never
mentioned in arguments for creatio ex nihilo: “Ages ago I Sophia
was set up…before the beginning of the earth. When there were no
depths (tehom) I was brought forth…”(Prov. 8:23-24). Here there
seems to be a clean break with previous creation models: watery chaos
is not a coeternal substance along with Yahweh and Sophia, his
co-craftsperson.
Creatio ex nihilo
represents yet another parting of the ways between process and
evangelical views. The process theologians of course reject God as
absolute power and support Whitehead’s own version of creation out
of chaos. In contrast to all traditional views, the process God does
not create the universe at one point in time nor does this God create
it continuously throughout all time; rather, God prepares “initial
aims” for an essentially self-creating universe. This brilliant and
unorthodox separation of “creativity” from God gives sufficient
independence to the world so that certain devastating implications of
creatio ex nihilo are avoided. Specifically, I have argued elsewhere
that such a doctrine of creation leads to the unavoidable imputation
of all evil to God. See www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/3dp.htm.
Sec. E.
There is yet another
problem with creatio ex nihilo. With regard to theological language,
its proponents have only the via negativa, for as William T. Jones
has phrased it, “God’s creativity and man’s have nothing in
common but the name.”(27) In contrast some process theologians
follow the via eminentia, so that the term “creativity” is used
univocally for both God and creatures. Charles Hartshorne expresses
this crucial aspect of a process doctrine of creation well:
“Creativity, if real at all, must be universal, not limited to God
alone, and it must be self-creativity as well as creative influencing
of others.”(28)
1. DILLOW’S VAPOR
CANOPY THEORY
In his book The
Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy, Joseph C. Dillow
discusses at great length the possibility that the biblical view
presented in the preceding section (with some exceptions of course)
was indeed a fact before Noah’s Flood. Although Dillow rejects the
hermeneutical excesses of the detailed inerrantists, he still remains
squarely within this view. In his book Dillow takes great pains to
point out the errors of apologists who have interpreted the heavenly
oceans as a figure of speech or as a way of portraying water-filled
clouds. Dillow argues persuasively that the Bible makes a clear
distinction between clouds and the waters of heaven and concludes
that the “cloud” interpretation is “clearly impossible.”
Dillow also firmly establishes that the celestial waters are above
the sky and not just in the atmosphere. Dillow believes, without
good justification, that Moses corrects much of the cosmology he
inherited from others, but “one of the things he does not correct
is the notion of a literal liquid ocean placed above the
atmosphere.”(29)
Dillow elaborates: “In
view of the principle of sharable implications… the only other
possible meaning of the text would be of a literal liquid ocean. It
is clear that the Hebrews were aware of the literal liquid ocean
concept from the surrounding myths why not also a metallic sky-dome?,
and that they were aware of clouds as a source of water.”31 He does
concede, however, that the vapor canopy he proposes was beyond Hebrew
experience and knowledge.
We have neither the
space nor expertise to consider Dillow’s long detailed, scientific
defense of the vapor canopy theory; instead, we shall propose some
criticisms from the standpoint of biblical hermeneutics and
comparative religion. One point, however, in the area of science
should be made. Without a solid skydome, Dillow must resort to divine
intervention in at least two ways: God must support the waters of
heaven from Creation to Noah and must also change them from their
original liquid state to the hypothesized vapor. Dillow’s use of
divine miracles does not make it likely that his vapor canopy theory
will be seriously considered in scientific circles. Dillow himself
admits that an “entirely different set of natural laws would have
had to have been in operation for such a state to have been
maintained.”(32) Dillow and other creationists, in one fell swoop,
have destroyed the very possibility of genuine science.
Since the alleged
celestial ocean was drained during the Deluge, one would not expect
to find reference to it after this time. But Psalm 148:4 clearly
refers to “you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens”;
Job speaks of the “waterskins of the heavens” (38:13); and
when God “utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the
heavens” (Jer. 10:13). It should be emphasized that God
“established them the heavenly waters forever and ever” (Ps.
148:5). Dillow cannot accept the standard conservative interpretation
of clouds, so he must embrace the celestial ocean here too. He
cautions us not to take “forever” too strictly, because from the
biblical perspective, God can always change what he has created: “So
the fact that these waters are described as lasting forever does not
necessarily mean that the temporary water of heaven theory cannot be
meant.”(33) Needless to say, I do not find Dillow convincing, and I
still maintain that Psalm 148:4 and the other passages cited above
must be interpreted in terms of a permanent reservoir of water.
Dillow’s response to
Psalm 148 is somewhat desperate and in his anxiety he reveals his
true hermeneutical colors. He maintains that if he reads verse four
as referring to the celestial ocean, he must somehow admit that “not
only did the Hebrews believe in a celestial ocean prior to the Flood,
but they also embraced the world view of the metallic dome and
present existence of the celestial sea held by the Canaanites. The
latter view contradicts the inerrancy of Scripture….”(34) It is
clear that the grammatical-historical investigation of the Bible
cannot maintain its integrity with such an a priori assumption of
inerrancy. The editors of the Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament also embrace a priori inerrancy in their rejection of
“gods” as the translation for ‘elohim in Exodus 22:8-9. They
state: “This is unacceptable from the point of view of Scripture’s
attestation to being God’s Word and its clear doctrine of the
existence of only one God.”(35) Dillow and other evangelicals not
only make creation “science” impossible but Bible science as
well. Some evangelicals prefer to stick to their ideology of
inerrancy rather than honor scholarly and scientific methods.
One of the predicted
(or “postdicted”) results of the vapor canopy theory is that
there would have been more protection from age-inducing cosmic rays
and a uniform and stable earthly climate. Dillow contends that
this would mean that humans would have lived longer, that there would
have been no rain, wind, or storms and that moisture would have been
produced by mists and dew. Dillow argues that this type of life
and climate is precisely what the Bible and other ancient literatures
describe. He quotes from the Persian story of Yima who lived for
900 years and at a time when there were neither cold nor hot
winds. He also cites accounts of the Golden Age in Greek and Hindu
literature. These halcyon days disappeared after the Flood when
the protective vapor layer was removed.
If we turn to the
stories of the ancient Sumerians, who are definitely antediluvian, we
find that Dillow’s theory is disconfirmed. For example, Enki, a
Sumerian water-god of wisdom, is said to have caused life-giving rain
to fall and he put the storm-god Ishkur in charge of it.(36)There is
also Ninurta, god of the stormy south wind. We can also read of P’an
Ku, the primal man of Chinese mythology, whose sweat became earthly
rain. As to the extended longevity of the prediluvian patriarchs,
ancient historians are well aware of hyperbolic chronologies in
Indian literature (especially Jainism) and Near Eastern records.
Sumerian kings, for example, had reigns from 18,600 to 65,000 years.
E. A. Speiser believes that this mythical chronology was appropriated
and partially demythologized by the priestly writers: “The P
source, then, did not invent the abnormal life-spans of the Sethite
list; if anything, they have been drastically reduced.”(37)
1. CELESTIAL CHAMBERS
AND THE HEAVEN OF HEAVENS
While it is true that
the Hebrews had a rough understanding of the circulation of water
vapor and the source of rain in the clouds (Job 36:27, 28), they also
conceived of mechanisms in heaven whereby God could directly induce
great atmospheric catastrophes. Obviously the clouds themselves could
not have held enough water for the Great Flood, so “all the
foundations of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the
heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:11; cf. Mal. 3:10). This is also
further proof that the earth was surrounded by watery chaos. The
Old Testament talks about divine “chambers” (heder) in heaven and
this notion seems to have been borrowed from Canaanite mythology.
Marvin Pope has discovered a direct parallel to the Ugaritic God ‘El
who “answers from the seven chambers,” usually through the media
of the seven winds.(38)
Significantly, we find
that Yahweh “brings forth the wind from his storehouses” (Ps.
135:7); and “from the chamber comes the tempest, from the
scatter-winds the cold” (Job 37:9, AB). From Amos we learn that God
“builds his upper chambers in the heavens” (9:6), and the
psalmists speak of God storing “his upper chambers” with water so
that he can water the mountains (Ps. 104:3, 13; cf. Ps. 33:7). Job
gives us the most detailed account of God’s chambers: “Have you
entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses
of the hail, which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the
day of battle and war?” (38:22). We must not forget that “Yahweh
is a warrior” (Ex. 15:3) and it is he, for example, who caused the
violent storm which destroyed the Canaanite army of Sisera (Jdgs. 5).
In the noncanonical Ecclesiasticus we discover that Yahweh has more
than storms in his chambers: “In his storehouses, kept for proper
time, are fire, famine, disease” (39:29). Dillow argues
convincingly that Yahweh’s storehouses of rain are not just clouds
or ocean basins; rather, they most definitely have a celestial
location.(39)
In the diagram at the
head of the chapter, the area above the “ocean of heaven” is
labeled the “heaven of fire.” I have not been able to verify
this, and it seems that it must be labeled “heaven of heavens”
instead. Again various levels of heaven are not unique to the Hebrews
for we can read that the Vedic seer conceived of at least “three
superior realms of heaven” (Rig-veda 8.41.9). One psalmist clearly
distinguishes between the two levels: “You highest heavens, and you
waters above the heavens” (Ps. l48:4). This area is exclusively
Yahweh’s domain: “The heaven of heavens belongs to Yahweh…”
(Ps. 115:16, AB); “To the Lord your God belong heaven and the
heaven of heavens…” (Deut. l0:l4); and “heaven and highest
heaven cannot contain thee” (1 Kgs. 8:27). These passages have led
to endless speculation about the various levels of heaven.
Creationist Henry D. Morris claims that there are three heavens: (1)
atmospheric heaven (Jer. 4:25); (2) sidereal heaven (Is. 13:10); (3)
and the heaven of God’s throne (Heb. 9:24).(40) The heaven of
heavens mentioned above is probably not Morris’ third heaven,
because it was created (Ps. 148:4) and it seems that God does not
dwell there (1 Kgs. 8:27). Commentators will probably never be able
to sort out many of these obscure passages.
In closing this
chapter, something must be said about the process of
“demythologizing.” This word, made popular by Rudolph Bultmann,
has become a dirty word among conservative Christians. It is clear,
however, that demythologizing happened with the writing of the Old
Testament, and it is occurring at another level within evangelical
hermeneutics itself. Recall that James Barr’s theory is that
fundamentalists take the Bible literally only when it fits the
doctrine of inerrancy. They do not hesitate to naturalize biblical
events when they must be harmonized with historical or scientific
facts. When Dillow claims, and rightly so, that Moses wrote of a
sovereign Yahweh completely in charge of a depersonalized nature, he
is conceding that the Hebrew writers, as with our example of the
Sumerian chronologies, were historicizing myth. But Dillow and other
evangelicals are also demythologizers in disguise, for they want us
to believe that a heavenly ocean and the flood it caused are facts
and not myths. This is demythologizing at its worst and the
evangelical rationalists are its champions.
Endnotes
Full bibliographical
information for references will be supplied at a later date. Until
then please check the full bibliography of the hard copy of God,
Reason, and the Evangelicals.
1.Francis Schaeffer, No
Final Conflict, p. 48.
2.Peter W. Stone and
Robert C. Newman, Science Speaks: Scientific Proof of the Accuracy of
Prophecy and the Bible. For the same view, see Newman and Herman J.
Eckles, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth.
3.New Bible Dictionary,
pp. 269/245, 271/246, 272/247.
4.John Jefferson Davis,
“When Does Personhood Begin?,” p. 41.
5.The Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 702.
6.The Interpreter’s
Bible, vol. 6, p. 731.
7.Richard S. Cripps, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Amos, p. 262.
8.Dahood, The Anchor
Psalms, vol. 2., p. 232.
9.Joseph C. Dillow, The
Waters Above, pp. 27 ff.
10.S. N. Kramer, The
Sumerians, p. 113, quoted in ibid., p. 127.
11.G. S. Kirk and J. E.
Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers, p. 10. Plato preserves this
cosmology with references to the “vault of heaven” and the
“heaven above the heaven” (Phaedrus 247).
12.S. N. Kramer,
Mythologies of the Ancient World, p. 341.
13.Ibid., p. 339. See
also R. C. Zaehner, The Teachings of the Magi, pp. 33, 39. The
earliest accounts, which were of course pre-Iron Age, described the
sky “as an empty shell, perfectly round, made of stone passing
beneath the earth as well as arching above it” (Mary Boyce, A
History of Zoroastrianism, vol. 1, p. 132).
14.The Tibetan Book of
the Dead, pp. 63, 65.
15.Nachmanides (Raban),
Commentary on the Torah, vol. 1, pp. 33, 36.
16.W. Gunther Plaut,
The Torah: A Modern Commentary, p. 18.
17.Excerpted in The
Living Talmud, p. 47.
18.Dillow, op. cit., p.
39.
19.The Rig-veda (trans.
O’Flaherty), pp. 32, 29.
20.Charles Squire,
Celtic Myth and Legend, p. 174.
21.Ancient Near Eastern
Texts, p. 67, 2nd col.
22.Bruce, “Our God
and Saviour,” p. 54; Pinnock, The Scriptural Principle, p. 123.
23.See Steven A.
Austin, “Springs in the Ocean.”
24.Marvin H. Pope, The
Anchor Job (3rd ed.), p. 165.
25.W. R. Lane, “The
Initiation of Creation,” pp. 63-73. “Perhaps the belief in
‘creation out of nothing’…is too sophisticated for Isreal’s
faith” (Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Earth is the Lord’s,” p.
184.) Anderson cites the best defense of creatio ex nihilo: Walther
Eichrodt’s “In the Beginning: A Contribution to the
Interpretation of the First Word of the Bible.”
26.G. W. Buchanan, The
Anchor Hebrews, p. 184. Neidhardt’s claim that the author of
Hebrews anticipated unseen atomic particles is unfortunately typical
speculation among many evangelicals (quoted in Henry, vol. 1, p.
169).
27.William T. Jones,
The Medieval Mind, p. 87. Despite Robert C. Neville’s brilliant
defense of creatio ex nihilo, he must still admit that “God’s
creative power having no medium apart from its product” is a “very
peculiar kind of power” (God the Creator, p. 114).
28.Quoted in Douglas
Browning, “The Development of Process Theology,” p. xi.
29.Dillow, op. cit.,
pp. 49-50.
30.Ibid., p. 22.
31.Ibid., p. 51.
32.Ibid., p. 57.
33.Ibid., p. 108.
34.Ibid., p. 106.
35.Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 45. Pinnock is the rare evangelical
who admits to the existence of Old Testament henotheism (see The
Scriptural Principle, p. 123). See references for henotheism on p.
103 above.
36.Kramer, Mythologies
of the Ancient World, pp. 100, 105.
