Biblical Cosmology

One problem with trying to understand the Bible is that its writers thought about the universe in much different terms than we do. This point comes out quite clearly in a couple of passages in The Future of Christianity, a modernist religious critique of conservative Christian beliefs. Here's the author's description of what we can call the biblical cosmology, although it wasn't unique to what became the books of the Bible:

The biblical view represented most clearly in the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a is that of a flat earth, covered by a dome to which the sun, the moon, and the stars are attached. The waters of heaven are above that dome or firmament. In fact, it is the opening of the windows of that dome that results in the falling of rain or snow upon the earth below.

Beneath the earth are the waters upon which the earth rests and the underworld, basically a tunnel through which the sun travels on its nightly journey from the west, where it sets, to return to the east in time for the next sunrise. The heavens are beyond the dome of the sky and serve as the permanent abode of God and his angels.

This biblical cosmology raises some interesting questions for modern believers.

Some Bible Passages
First, knowing the biblical cosmology helps make sense of many bible passages. For example, Genesis 1 becomes more comprehensible (try reading the NET Bible version), especially knowing that the Hebrew word translated as "firmament" is sometimes rendered as "dome." So now we know what it's talking about, although we know there isn't really a dome up there.

When Gen. 7:11 says "the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened," it's clear where the writer of Genesis 7:11 thought the water was coming from. That understanding carries clear through the Old Testament: in Malachi 3:10 KJV it says, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will now open up the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it." The passage makes more sense now, except we know there aren't windows in the dome through which rain falls. There isn't even a dome.

The New Testament reflects the same biblical cosmology. Take the description of the baptismal vision of Jesus: "... Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:9-10 KJV). "Heavens" in that verse can also be rendered "sky." It's that dome of the sky again, and when it splits apart God and His angels stand revealed. So now the passage makes more sense. Still, no dome, no sky that can be ripped.

And here's from Revelation: "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places" (Rev. 6:13-14). The writer imagined stars falling to earth, just like that plummeting light fixture in The Truman Show, and the heavens, that dome of the sky again, rolling up like a scroll.

Some Mormon Passages
I'm not sure how Bible Christians deal with this disconnect between biblical cosmology and modern cosmology, but it's less of a problem for Mormons. First, we have D&C 77, which makes it clear that much of the imagery used by the writer of Revelation is just imagery. So the four beasts in Rev. 4:6 are "figurative expressions" that describe "heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air ... (v. 2). Likewise, the eyes and wings of the beasts are "a representation of light and knowledge" and "a representation of power, to move, to act, etc." (v. 4). It's nice the D&C explicitly rejects hyperliteralism and approves a metaphorical reading of untenable passages.

Next, we have a different religious cosmology. In general, I'm not a big fan of Book of Abraham astronomy, but in light of the biblical cosmology reviewed earlier in this post, Abraham 3 takes on a rather more expansive reading. Abraham has God addressing him as follows: "[B]ehold I will show you all these [stars]. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof" (Abr. 3:12). That sounds a lot bigger than the dome of the sky. There are about two hundred billion stars in just our own Milky Way galaxy — more than would fit on any dome. Hard to even imagine that many stars, but "I could not see the end thereof" points in the right direction.

Finally, there is the first chapter of Moses, one of the more enigmatic passages of Mormon scripture. In what is presented as a prologue to the Genesis creation account, God tells Moses, "For mine own purpose have I made these things. ... And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose ..." (Moses 1:31, 33). Shortly thereafter, we encounter this rather stunning passage:

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:37-38)

Even more than the passage in Abraham, these verses in Moses clearly envision the sort of universe we have in mind today, one that is huge beyond description, simply beyond any human scale. Astronomers estimate there are a hundred billion galaxies. With billions of stars each. Cannot be numbered, indeed.

Comments

[R. Gary]

I don't exactly agree that "Bible ... writers thought about the universe in much different terms than we do."

Rather, the "interpretations of biblical scholars ... attribute a [false] cosmology to ... Old Testament passages [while] Latter-day Saint scriptures indicate that both biblical and latter-day prophets and seers were shown visions of the heavenly realms to [correctly] orient them to God's dominion and eternal purposes." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Astronomy.)

[danithew]

I appreciate this post. It clears up some things for me about the Biblical view of the universe. I've never been quite sure what kind of universe schema was being imagined here and that's why I liked this overview.

[Dave]

Thanks for the note, R. Gary. I couldn't find the article you are quoting online, but I found a related Encyclopedia of Mormonism article at the About Mormons site: Scriptural References to Astronomy. It provides some additional LDS scripture references.

Most interesting is this passage from the Book of Mormon, Helaman 12:13-15, which describes a heliocentric solar system:

Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved.
Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

So it would appear the Book of Mormon does not reflect the three-tiered cosmology of the Bible and of the ancient world.

[Dave]

There are plenty of online summaries of the three-tiered cosmology of the Bible. Here are a few:

• Biblical Conception of the Universe


• Cosmology of the Ancient World


• The Flat-Earth Bible

[danithew]

I can't help but think of the verse in PoGP that says Moses was shown every particle of the earth. I wonder how that and associated verses should influence the way we see this cosmology or if it would have altered how Moses saw cosmology.

I'll need to go look at the passage to see what else it says about the subject.

[Jettboy]

"This biblical cosmology raises some interesting questions for modern believers."

I just don't see those quesions as that interesting. Again, maybe this is coming from a Mormon point of view where Scripture is not Sola Scriptoria or at least not infallable. Glass ceiling as the Universe or not, there just isn't a problem in those readings.

For instance, every time it states "open up the Heavens" the last thing coming to my mind is an ancient belief in a glass cover. In fact, I would bet even innerant literalists wouldn't even imagine such an image. Even today with our advances in scientific knowledge there is still the idea of the "heavens opening up and . . . " whatever falls out of the sky (notice I said "falls out of" even though it doesn't technically fall out of anything).

For me knowing the ancient ideas of how the Cosmos operated doesn't help with my understanding of scriptures. None of what I imagine the Scriptures talking about has changed in the least. At best it is a trivial fact that helps me appreciate what we are able (and think we are able) to know today. Unless proved otherwise by literalists, the whole discussion is a red herring or straw man. At best it begs the question of what is a literalist and how unliteral can you go before you aren't one?

[Dave]

Jett, I think the question of when a literal versus when a figurative or symbolic understanding of an event or passage of scripture is proper (or when both might apply) is more than just a red herring (a figurative one, not a real herring).

But the bible cosmology actually raises a different question. Everyone agrees this is how the bible writers actually thought about how the world/universe was put together (i.e., everyone agrees this was their literal understanding, not simply a figurative depiction). The question is how our rejection of their model, their actual understanding, affects our understanding of the rest of their message. Are we free to recast the message in the context of our own model of the world/universe? I hope so.

[Mike Parker]

The first two articles in the required-reading Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant look at Abraham 3 from the perspective of a geocentric cosmology (John Gee, Bill Hamblin, Dan Peterson) versus an scientifically-accurate cosmology (Michael Rhodes, Ward Moody).

Personally, I think the geocentric view fits better with the text and the Biblical model.

And I disagree with Gary (#1) and Erich Robert Paul's EofM article — the textual evidence is overwhelming that the ancient authors of scripture understood the universe much differently than we do. Although I admit there is room in Mormonism for both viewpoints.

[Duff]

Science has certainly revealed a great deal about the universe. Could someone, anyone, tell me what God, or any of His representatives have revealed about the universe that has been illustrative, or predictive of what we now know to be true. One would certainly assume that God would know some really pertinent things about how things really are out there. Am I missing something here?

[Dave]

He said it was good.

[Clark Goble]

Duff, while I'm sure God knows a lot it doesn't seem like his focus is on teaching correct physics.