Re: Biblical Cosmology

Asst Prof Clarence F Sills Jr (sills@nadn.navy.mil)
Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:32:08 -0400 (EDT)

I hesitate to barge in, but finally we have gotten around to
"appearance." So now does seem to be the appropriate time. I wonder if
any reflectorites are familiar with Owen Barfield's book Saving the
Appearances? I will not try to summarize it here--it is an original and
deeply learned, if controversial contribution to the subject. David's
claim that APPEARANCE IS REALITY (to primitive peoples) triggered this
post. There is a good deal of evidence that this is not the case. The
case, in Barfield's view, is much more complex: both primitives and we
recognize that the reality we perceive is a "representation," but there
is a significant difference: we are unconscious about our own
participation in perception (we have to be reminded of it by philosophers),
while primitives generally are not. I
summarize. The discussion is very interesting, deals intelligently with
scientific, philosophical, and religious matters. I recommend it to
anyone wishing to seriously grapple with the problems of "appearance."
Incidentally "appearance" is the one critierion admitted by the
classical skeptics, whose work is summarized by Sextus Empiricus (c. 200
AD) in a memorable assault on "dogmatism," including scientific
dogmatism. I heartily recommend his work Outlines of Pyrrhonism to those
who wish to pursue the skeptical implications of the criterion of appearance.
Niels Bohr is still grappling with the issues raised by Sextus Empiricus
in his debates with Einstein.
Barfild's comments on "Darwinian" evolution criticize it from an angle I
have never encountered elsewhere. Let me know what you think.
Classes start this week, so that is all I have for now. Chip Sills

On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, David J. Tyler wrote:

> Abstract: A response to Loren's comments on a flat-Earth cosmology in
> the Bible.
>
> on 18th August, Loren Haardsma wrote:
> "There are a variety of ways to interpret the language of Genesis
> 1 ... However, all of these views gloss over an important (IMO)
> difficulty -- the flat-earth cosmology of author".
> And:
> "... God allowed his revealed truth to be couched in the
> cosmological imagery of the author's culture, without first
> correcting that imagery".
> It seems to me that further discussion of these comments is
> warranted - if accepted, they have far-reaching implications for
> our general approach to the exegesis of the Bible, and
> particularly Genesis 1.
>
> The traditional Reformed approach to this issue has taken its
> lead from Calvin - who presented the case for the Scriptures
> using the language of appearance in his Commentary on Genesis.
> This was also the original "defence" of the Copernican model of
> the Cosmos. I made the following comment on this on July 7th
> 1995:
> "I venture to suggest also that Copernicanism was of great
> importance in the development of biblical hermeneutics: people
> recognised that the Bible used the language of appearance (rather
> than using technical terminology). This was beginning to be
> taught at the Reformation (eg by Calvin - even though he was a
> geocentrist) - but Copernicanism provided a very clear example
> of the principle".
>
> However, Loren Haardsma wrote:
> "Calling it "language of appearances" is, I think, too easy of
> an out".
> I want to know why!! Thanks to Glenn for showing us that such
> language is still part of our culture. However, more needs to
> be said.
> It is not satisfactory to say that the various authors of
> Genesis, Job, etc., "clearly had a flat-earth, 'sky sandwich'
> cosmology in mind". This is only possible to say if we impute
> a world-view which distinguishes what we can see and ultimate
> reality. In our scientific culture, we have grown accustomed to
> the idea that appearance and reality are two DIFFERENT things.
> We treat the appearance as something superficial and say that it
> is necessary to get beneath the surface and find out what's
> really going on! If someone then refers to the Bible using the
> language of appearance, we tend to think that the motive is to
> justify erroneous or primitive ideas in the Bible. The problem
> is that our cultural norms are inhibiting understanding. It is
> important to recognise that the culture of the Bible is a-
> scientific or non-scientific. Within this culture, the
> appearance is not to be regarded as something which conceals
> reality. On the contrary, THE APPEARANCE IS THE REALITY. So,
> for example, it is entirely legitimate for a person to describe
> the sun as rising in the east and setting in the west - this is
> reality!
>
> Loren also makes this comment:
> "But this leads immediately to another question: "Why didn't God
> relate a spherical-earth account of creation in Genesis 1?"
> Although a heliocentric view may not have been available around
> the time of the completion of Genesis, a spherical-earth view
> almost certainly was".
> In my view, the Bible does not speak of either geocentrism nor
> heliocentrism. Such conceptual models of the cosmos are alien
> to the Hebrew culture (which is non-scientific and therefore
> timeless). This culture does not need to be "corrected" -
> although it can be a spring-board for science.
>
> Loren's last comment was:
> "So it seems unlikely to me that the passage's essential revealed
> truth has much, if anything, to do with the actual "formative
> history" of creation".
> This conclusion cannot be drawn if the language of appearance
> argument is accepted. Historical events are matters of
> "appearance" and are expected to be understood as real in the
> minds of readers. I would suggest that this is fully consistent
> with the Old and New Testament use of the Book of Genesis.
>
> [Coming back from a short break, I found so much mail from the
> Reflector that it is a problem how to handle it! I am conscious that
> Loren has provided a thoughtful response to my contribution to the
> "Literature reform" series, and it will need time to think through
> what he has said. In the meantime, this issue has come up - and it
> is a subject to which I have already given some thought.]
>
> Best wishes,
>
> *** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
> Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
> Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***
>
>