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 ***
>
>