Jump to content

Talk:Biblical cosmology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Esther

In the somewhat astrological book of Esther we find she is actualy E'stur, or "The Star" in Chaldean. This expands to E'ster and A'ster. As Venus was always spoken of in the definitive, we have to conclude she parodied the actions attributed to that Star/Planet. Mordechai, her uncle, comes from Marduk/c for Mars, whilst Haman was Mercury. Whilst this 'war in heaven' due to a conjunction of heavely bodies took place, the 'as-above, so-below' syndrome took effect with king Xerxes taking the role of the inert Moon. As in Joshua, the Moon had been commanded to remain still in the sky until the deed had been completed. Vasti, the queen deposed by Esther, is exactly the same as the Sanskrit Svasti, meaning "The Sign," which is the emergence of Venus augering change. The 'hidden name' of Esther is Hadassa, which transliterates as "Myrtle": which happens to be the sacred plant of Meni/y, more commonly known as Venus. This is just one of many astrological references in the bible, both Old and New Testaments offering greater insight through 'understanding,' which is the "Light" (Ur) issuing from the "Lamp"(Ner)that was to erradicate the "Veil" (Lot) of Darkness (Ignorance) upon faces of the gentiles. Through your work you continue that which has gone before. Sincerely: alan, emsworth, hampshire, england. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.33.11 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2004


Biblical astronomy

I have suggested a merge from Biblical astronomy, which is at least in part a fork of this page, and contains redundant information. -Harmil 20:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: There is enough non-redundant information at this point that I think they should not be merged. The article would be too large. Biblical cosmology seems to have headed in the direction of including modern science, like big-bang theory. I recommend cutting the redundant info. from Biblical astronomy and making it into an article about the technical aspects, e.g., what stars and planets are named.
I also think that Biblical cosmology is apologetics verging on POV where it talks about modern cosmology. Anyone want to take on explaining why parallels with big bang theory may be coincidental? Maestlin 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
We could argue in circles trying to make that point. Instead, I have offered some Biblical blunders to explain why such parallels are dangerous. Arbeiter 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Biblical Passages

The list of biblical passages of supposed relevance to Biblical cosmology is totally inadequate for an encyclopedia article. Scriptural texts, like all primary sources, require careful interpretation and do not speak for themselves. A few of those cited clearly do not support the positions which they are purported to support. All of the passages in this list should either be adequateely discussed on the basis of reliable scriptural commentators, or deleted from this section. --SteveMcCluskey 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Anytime someone links to a biblical passage and interprates the meaning for us has just done original reseach. --Homecomputer 16:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

spiritual cosmology

What is the section on spiritual cosmology doing? This article was about the bible's take on astronomy. One editor came and change the WP:LEAD, and beefed up a section on "spritual cosmology," a term that doesn't even get 1000 google a hits. Based on the comment "This is the core of Biblical cosmology, unlike the previous garbage." it seems like this editor is intent on changing the article completely. My proposal to solve this problem is to create a spinout article on Christian spiritual cosmology, and leave this article to discuss the bible's take on astronomy/cosmology. What do other editor's think? Is there a good reason to remove the previous content and turn this article into something new?--Andrew c 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The section was already there, but anemic and without references. I simply added some references according to the article's pre-existing format. I wouldn't call that a complete change. As for the garbage, nobody ever believed that, and the lack of references proves it. It was just some critic's slanderous spin on isolated scriptures. I don't see the need for a spinoff. --GoodSamaritan 22:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I seriously don't see what that section has to do with this article. This article is about the biblical POV in regards to astronomy/cosmic origins. That section, in addition to being just a list of quotes, seems completely off topic. I seriously propose removing that section, and if someone wants to write an article on Christian spiritual cosmology, so be it. But I still don't see what any of that has to do with astronomy.--Andrew c 23:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ten Commandments? How is this in any sense related to Biblical cosmology? --Robert Stevens 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "the garbage" was what the authors of the Bible believed: the fact that hardly anyone still believes this nowadays is irrelevant. The basic model of a flat Earth covered by a solid sky-dome, with the stars as little lamps attached to it, was common throughout the region. We shouldn't try to fit modern astronomical knowledge into a book written by those who had no conception of it: that would be Eisegesis. I think a major revert is in order here: back to how this article looked in late September, before the "Spiritual Cosmology" stuff. It wasn't perfect then either, but we could work on that. I'd like to see some more stuff about the historical context, i.e. references to Sumerian/Babylonian cosmology. --Robert Stevens 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, for you to say that the Bible authors intended a literal interpretation of those passages would be for you to be doing original research. The job of interpreting auhtor's intent is not ours as editors. As editors we cite the experts. this whole article needs help. :) Peace. --Homecomputer 16:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
How would it be "original research" if this is the opinion of scholars in cited articles, not just mine? Furthermore, it should be possible to present this material without commenting on whether the authors intended a "literal interpretation" (indeed, as the whole of Revelation is considered to be an allegorical interpretation of events in the Roman Empire at the time, its allusions to the old cosmological model probably weren't intended to be taken literally). Plenty of Christians consider the Genesis creation story to be "not literal" too (including Augustine), yet it can still be presented. --Robert Stevens 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Opinion of the scholars is what we are supposed to present so we are doing well whenever we are accurately summarizing and citing that material. Your POV and mine are pointless (except for when our POVs drive us to find better citation). Your POV and mine about which sections of the Bible are written by God, are intended to be understoof litterally by God and are intended by God for us to use as allegory is completely irrelevant to the way wiki is set up. Unless we are a notable citable source by wiki standards for interpreting the Words of the Allmighty our opinions and POV are best left here in the discussion while we dig up sources and appropriate citations for the article. :) Peace. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Side note, whenever you start interpreting, like writing your own commentary or giving your own explination even with a pov header, that kind of stuff is POV Original Research, even if it's unoriginal, even if I agree with it. You gotta cite other people saying it, you just can't publish your own interp here. Peace --Homecomputer∴Peace 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that the Bible itself is a citable source. Other than giving the Biblical chapter and verse, no additional citation is actually required for any comment such as "according to the Bible..." --Robert Stevens 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, why the fact that this disagreement between the "Association for Biblical Astronomy" and "scientific thought" is being discussed from the scientific viewpoint is further POV. Wiki's stance is not for scientific thought. It's neutral. --Home Computer∴Peace 15:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...Except that it ISN'T being discussed "from the scientific viewpoint": the conflict between both viewpoints is mentioned without endorsing either one. I get the impression that you're reading an entirely different article. --Robert Stevens 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

I must confess I'm a little hesitant to even bring this up as I know it will stir the emotions of some of the editors involved in the creation of this page.. but I would like to point out that in nearly every section of this article is some editorial POV pushing it one way or the other. The most obvious examples can be found in the tagged section where the editor lets the reader know his opinion of creationists and in the introduction where the editor lets us know that he feels biblical content is derived from the limitations of human authorship. Now regardless what your feelings on the subject are, definitions, perspectives on the subject and theories all need to be notable and citable opinions of the experts on the matter otherwise they simply don't belong on Wikipedia. Also, I'm not pushing for additional opinion to be added. Rather, I am asking for personal opinion to be removed and for proffessional opinion to be cited. Please help me in that goal if you agree with the wiki standards. :) Peace. --Homecomputer∴Peace 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this. Can you be more specific? What part of the now-tagged paragraph is in dispute? And as for the introduction: as the Bible doesn't include a dedicated "cosmology" chapter, what's wrong with saying that it offers "glimpses" into the author's views on cosmology, regardless of who you consider "the author" to be? --Robert Stevens 11:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say anything was wrong about your POV except that i simply was that. There are other POV's that are commonly held though and we don't want to make wiki sound POV'done way or the other, thats all.
I still don't see why my edit of that paragraph is a "point of view", if that's what you are referring to (my replacement of "Bible truths" with "compatibility with the Bible"). The previous wording WAS a point of view, whereas the new wording is neutral. If I had said "Bible falsehoods", you might have a point...
...So, as I see no reason for the tag to be there, I'll remove it. If that's not what you were referring to, then please explain. --Robert Stevens 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When you discuss a topic such as the Bible or Biblical Astronomy on wiki the facts are supposed to be presented. Ideally the facts are things that people on all sides can agree with. When certain POV's are prevelant, those POV's need to be included with documentation. What I see being done throughout this article is one particular sides POV being presented as fact without citation. It's as if the whole article was written to proove a point. This is unencylcopedic and violates nPOV.

One small example: "Association for Biblical Astronomy" attempts to alter scientific thought to be compatible with the Bible with special focus on astronomy" The POV of the editor is obvious here. The nuetral facts aren't even included and the POV is one sided and uncited. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

...Uh, nope, I'm still not seeing it. This looks like "facts that all sides can agree with". Who would disgree with this, and why? It is entirely neutral to recognize that the scientific community holds views that aren't compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible (POV issues come in when you try to say who's right and who's wrong), and entirely neutral to note that various Christian organizations want to change those views (and those organizations are cited with links to their own websites). What would be a more neutral way of saying this? The tag should be used to identify a problem that needs to be solved: what is the problem, and what is the solution? --Robert Stevens 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You seriously don't understand why your take on Biblical Astronomy violates nPOV? Well.. if you were them, would you agree with assesment this article assumes? What would they say? --Home Computer∴Peace 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, same goes for the Young Earth section. And you should note that the modern Flat Earth proponents are actually evolutionalists not creationsist. Check the article.--Home Computer∴Peace 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This isn't about MY take on Biblical astronomy! We're discussing the disagreement between the "Association for Biblical Astronomy" and "scientific thought" (i.e. the prevailing view of scientists on this issue), and THEIR desire to change "scientific thought". From their own website: This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance. So they want to change "scientific thought". This is factual. Where's the POV?

The POV is where you apply specific negative connotation such as "attempts to alter scientific thought to be compatible with the Bible" You assume they are attempting to alter science. That is your view point. It presupposes that they disagree with science and that they then seek to alter the outcome. You've not demonstrated either of those claims. --Home Computer∴Peace 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong That sentence is as clear as day - if science does not agree with the bible, they will take the bible. So yes they want to change the scientific view to meet their POV. --Michael Johnson 10:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That is your POV, what is theres? --Home Computer∴Peace 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No that is an application of logic and clear thinking - I didn't actually say what my POV was. --Michael Johnson 22:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, their website declares itself to be the "official GEOCENTRICITY website". They believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Scientists believe that the Earth orbits the Sun (this is common knowledge, no citation needed). So, yes, they disagree with science: this has been demonstrated. So I can remove the NPOV tag now, yes? Especially as you still haven't suggested what you'd consider to be a "neutral" wording of this. --Robert Stevens 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry who believes in Geocentrism? Are you talking about that self made webpage with 9 non notable members? This is somehow a serious point for a wiki article? --Home Computer∴Peace 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised that you've never heard of Modern geocentrism before. But you seem to be intent on applying a double standard here: among scientists, Young-Earth Creationism is considered to be about as ridiculous as geocentrism is among YEC's (or, probably, flat-Earthism among geocentrists). There's a hirearchy of beliefs:

Theistic Evolution - ID - OEC - YEC - Geocentrism - Flat-Earthism

Each is a more extreme position than the next, and a smaller group (vanishingly small, for the Flat-Earthers). And each would probably like to disown those further along than themselves. --Robert Stevens 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take notice:Hey guys.. I know there is alot of innate bias. However, the truth will always stand up to falsehood, so all we really need to do is remove biased wording; people who are intent to learn well check on sources, so you don't have to fret about it. Anyway, the reason I was saying all this is I found some wording that kinda tweaks things a bit: it says, "The Catholic Church and many other mainline Christian denominations accept modern scientific cosmology as compatible with allegorical interpretations of the Bible. The Conservative and Reform traditions within Judaism also accept modern cosmology as compatible with their reading of scripture." The words "also accept ... as compatible with their reading of scripture" follow the former sentence about the Catholic Church and mainline denominations, and make it seem like they take an allegorical view that agrees with modern cosmology; "Do you agree that modern cosmology is compatible," is a differnet question then, "Do you agree with modern cosmology?" Thus, I propose we change the wording to, "The Catholic Church and many other mainline Christian denominations see modern scientific cosmology as compatible with an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, while the Conservative and Reform traditions within Judaism actually accept modern cosmology as being compatible with their reading of scripture." Is that o.k? 1:51, 16 December 2006

I really do not see the difference between "accept modern scientific cosmology as compatible with ... the Bible" and "accept modern cosmology as compatible with the... scripture" I think you read the sentence wrong, or else I am very confused. Because the way the article is currently is almost exactly verbatim identical. Anyway, do you have a source that says these Jewish views are different from the Catholic and mainline Christian views?--Andrew c 07:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry Andrew; I got long winded. What I was implying was that since both sentences use the word "accept", and the latter sentence uses the word "also", when you read them together it seems like everyone has agreed upon an allegorical interpritation of genesis, and thus, modern cosmology. As for your question, I am pretty sure I could find some gigantic fundamentalist group that still believes that the first part of genesis should be read literally. Though, as far as I know, mainline speaking, in the U.S., most people dismiss genesis. Lol. 12:40 17 December 2006

Flat Earth POV

And wherever did you get the notion that Flat-Earthers were "evolutionists"? The article states that Samuel Birley Rowbotham's views were "based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages". And then there's Voliva was a pioneer in religious radio broadcasting. Listeners to his 100,000-watt (0.1 MW) radio station were treated to thundering denunciations of the evils of evolution and round earth astronomy. So this was a ''creationist movement. --Robert Stevens 15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow the link to thier webpage, the majority of proponents of flat earth on thier webpage (mods included) identify themselves as evolutionists. --Home Computer∴Peace 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't understand satire or parody. I have myself supported flat-Earthism in an online debate: it was fun! But to suggest that serious proponets of flat-Earthism are "evolutionists" is ludicrous. And where did you get the notion that the majority of proponents (rather than posters) self-identify as evolutionists anyhow? I see no such summary. --Robert Stevens 16:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Look for where the mods of the site claim evolution, also what other source are you finding that says Flat Earth is a modern Christian stance? Take a look at Flat Earth for some better info. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The article itself declares that the number of flat-Earthers is "vanishingly small", so nobody is arguing that flat-Earthism is a "modern Christian stance" of any significance. However, the 1990's is still pretty "modern", surely? As for the Flat-Earth Society: here[2] is a list of those considered to be "genuine" flat-Earthers. You keep saying these people are "evolutionists", but you have presented no evidence. --Robert Stevens 08:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
See above, also, since they are so vanishingly small thier voice on wiki is not appropriate per wiki's notability. --Home Computer∴Peace 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1300&highlight=believes The funny thing is a few of the creationist votes were mods that later appologise for having voted wrongly but claim instead to be Flat Earth evolutionsists. --Home Computer∴Peace 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As 139 people responded to that poll (including 16 alleged flat-Earthers), but there are only 9 genuine flat-Earthers on the forum (according to the other thread), I suspect many people are just fooling around. I doubt that this supports any conclusion. But, contrary to your claim, I don't see anyone in that thread admitting to being a "flat-Earth evolutionist": those vacillating over creation/evolution are either round-Earthers or unspecified. --Robert Stevens 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep reading. It's in there. Look, I'm not gonna invite you over to my house for tea, pull up the page and poiont to the monitor, you can argue or you can look closer or you can ignore and say whatever you want. (I've got a fair guess on what you're going to do) Same goes for all the POV issues, you can try to understand what others are saying or you can stick to your guns and push whatever you want to push. I'm not changing the article but I have demonstrated some issues with it that you can either look into to try to save the article, or ignore. Either way the tools and perogative are yours. Peace --Home Computer∴Peace 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have read all 7 pages of that thread, several times now, and nowhere does anybody admit to being a "flat-Earth evolutionist". Maybe you were looking somewhere else? --Robert Stevens 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I do not understand the two tagged sections. Could it please be spelled out to me the exact issues at hand? If the only issue with the "Modern movements in Biblical cosmology" is the line about "flat-earth", then we only need a verification tag, not a neutrality tag for the whole section. If there are more issues, please explain exactly what the problem is. Same thing for the original research section. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't find anything on talk specifically addressing the OR issues of the "Stars as the Hosts of Heaven" section. Maybe an itemized list would help (it would help me)? Thanks.--Andrew c 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I share your confusion! Especially as Home Computer has singled out the sentence "Association for Biblical Astronomy" attempts to alter scientific thought to be compatible with the Bible with special focus on astronomy", but apparently wants us to guess what the POV problem is here. I'm stumped!
Home Computer, you still haven't explained what it is, other than your demand that we "demonstrate" the views of the "Association for Biblical Astronomy", which has been done (they are displayed rather prominently on the Association's website). You may disagree with their views, and maybe you're embarrassed by them: but that doesn't mean that mentioning them is "POV". Plenty of Christians are embarrassed by the existence of inerrantists and Young-Earth Creationists, but they don't seem to be in the habit of branding all mention of their existence as "POV". If that's not your objection, then you really should try to explain yourself better: as example of what YOU would consider to be "neutral" wording would certainly help matters. --Robert Stevens 16:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Association for Biblical Astronomy" attempts to alter scientific thought to be compatible with the Bible with special focus on astronomy. "Young Earth Creationists (YEC)" attempts to alter scientific thought to be compatible with the Bible with special focus on creationism (spiritual cosmology). These quotes violate nPOV in that they claim these organizations attempt to alter science. nPOV would state that they attempt to demonstrate through science. Whether or not they alter science to demonstrate that is a long contentions POV'd debate. --Home Computer∴Peace 16:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They attempt to alter scientific thought, i.e. the opinions (and procedures) of the scientific community. What scientists THINK. --Robert Stevens 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes we know that is the POV of you and likely most it is stil not neutral wiki language. --Home Computer∴Peace 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article isn't that well written or sourced, and I feel it overlaps with a number of existing articles. I feel that this should be redirected to Creationist cosmologies and any salvagable content merged there or Creation according to Genesis. Maybe we could create a sub-section of Creationist cosmologies called "Biblical justification" or something like that? Sound ok, or am I missing a reason why this article should stand by itself.--Andrew c 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a place somewhere for the old Hebrew/Sumerian/Ugaritic cosmology which forms the backdrop of the Bible (i.e. flat-Earth, solid-sky, stars as little lights attached to the sky). Obviously, this isn't the view of modern creationists: it's ancient history. More extra-Biblical citations are needed, so that it doesn't just look like an anti-Bible polemic created by a skeptic using a "Bible errors" site. --Robert Stevens 10:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
...I'm not sure who this guy is[3], but what he wrote seems well-supported by references to Biblical dictionaries (even though it doesn't really go into details on historical origins). This was the first Google hit on "Hebrew cosmology" (implying that it must be widely cited, as Google ranks pages by the number of links to them). I'll do some more searching. There is also this[4] at religioustolerance.org, which links to a page[5] giving more details of the Sumerian model. --Robert Stevens 13:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We could rename this page to "Hebrew Cosmology" (with a redirect here from "Biblical Cosmology"), which would provide better justification for the inclusion of material from books no longer considered "canonical" (e.g. Enoch and Baruch) and an exploration of the historical (extra-Biblical) origins of this cosmological model. --Robert Stevens 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a great plan for the future of this article, but it would obviously require a fairly major re-write. Should we make a stub and redirect this page for the time being? I'd also like to have a 3rd (or more) opinion before moving forward as well. But great idea!--Andrew c 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, lets Do it. --Home Computer∴Peace 03:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to that website, if you look at the pictures, you can easliy see the earth as it is today. Just save and copy and paste and flip 180 degrees, and you will see the earth suspended in the waters of heaven. Also, it is amazing how God's dwelling is seen as a place where the storehouses are erected, as water must evaporate and piece together again in the clouds before it becomes snow or rain. 1:20 17 December 2006
There appears to already be a Hebrew Cosmology page that's a redirect to the very well written Hebrew Astronomy article. I think that the above plan is nixed. I suggest that this page be MOVED to a page I just created as a redirect here - Christian cosmology, as this view is taken from the Christian cannon, and the POV and material is definitely Christian in nature. I've also done some rewriting on here to try and make it a bit more sensical and neutral. I agree that theological Creation/Cosmology pages need to be audited and merged where appropriate. This should perhaps be part of the WikiProject:Bible endeavour. Open to comments, Shamanchill (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Proof of the Creator"

I've reverted some changes by user 76.103.210.196. They removed some previous content, but mainly they seem to be an excuse to slip in a link to a site that is inappropriate for a variety of reasons: a looooong animation clip which attempts to "prove the existence of God" with numerology. Apparently a non-notable source, somewhat off-topic (measurements of the Ark etc), uses some pretty specious arguments, and doesn't even present them in an easily-digestible written format (it takes forever to get to the point). --Robert Stevens 19:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the presentation you are referring to and found it to be very enlightening. 1) It's not looooong at all, it's only 16 minutes. 2) They do a very good job connecting scientific fact to Biblical references of the two major structures in the Bible (i.e. Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant) to the two major celestial bodies in our Solar System (ie. the Sun and Moon). 3) I wouldn't call the astronomical facts and Biblical references "non-notable" sources. 4) The references shown ARE the topic. 5) They aren't arguments at all, they're facts. 6) They were very well presented in a pace that is easily digestable. 7) Its a video presentation and not a "written" format. Lastly; the points are made throughout the presentation, and again, 16 minutes is not "forever". Your very extreme criticism is completely egregious in natural. I suggest and recommend all who have a mere 16 minutes to go to the presentation and view it for themselves: http://www.thefirmament.org. I guess for some it might be over their head. --MyCallonWiki 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Having watched the 16 minutes in full, I can attest that this video is complete tosh and has no place as a source on Wikipedia. 77.213.95.67 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Do not undo this edit, but put a new tag and new comments so it will have a current date. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Conjecture, counting of "wandering stars" and planets, separation of Bibl. Astronomy from Cosmology

At the head of this starry host stands a "captain of the army" (Josh. 5:14; Dan. 8:11); according to the passage in the Book of Daniel, he was the star highest in altitude as well. By this designation the planet Saturn was probably intended, the farthest removed from earth and therefore the highest in the heavens, and which was held by the Assyrians to be the "bellwether" of the flock.

I don't think that you can equate "highest in altitude" with distance from the Earth from an ancient POV. These cultures had absolutely no way of knowing that, with only position (relative to the ecliptic and unmoving pole stars and two horizons), orbital period, and brightness to differentiate a "wandering star's" magnitude of whatever kind in comparison to another's. I'd like to remove the entire sentence unless someone can find a source for it. Even the Naked-eye_planets page states this conclusion as conjecture.

Secondly, there are 7 "wandering stars" in the sky, 5 naked-eye visible planets, the sun and the moon. There's a claim in the article that

this passage can be viewed as calling the seven planets the "seven eyes of God"

. I think it needs to be clarified, and suggest a reading of the Naked eye planets page for more info.

Lastly, if this page lands the redirect from Biblical Astronomy, then it's sorely lacking in examples, material, and citations (as others have stated above). Where's the "Star of Bethlehem", among many others mentioned in scripture? I've got a source book by Joan Andre Moore I'd like to cite in some additions/corrections to the content if nobody minds, and also suggest the un-merging of Biblical Astronomy (experiences and interpretations of movements of the stars) from Biblical Cosmology (theories on cosmic origins) as two very separate topics. The former currently redirects to the latter currently and I can't find the former in the deletion log or mentioned in the latter's history. Regards, Shamanchill (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research

All of this seems to be original research: therefore it is quite possible that the author of Genesis, like Ezekiel, regarded the sky as being composed of solidified water or ice (some translations render it as "crystal"). Such a sky, being transparent, would permit the stars, which are located above its vault, to be seen through it.

[edit] Stars as the Hosts of Heaven

Several biblical passages refer to “hosts” around God and in the heights above. This phrase is commonly taken to refer to angels or other creatures, but an alternate interpretation takes it to mean the stars. Under this interpretation, the stars were supposed to be living creatures. If the difficult passage (Judges 5:20) may be regarded as other than a poetical figure, the stars "walk on the way"; they "come out" in the morning, and "go in" at night. By a miracle, sun and moon are made to stand suddenly still (Joshua 10:12). They fight from their courses like warriors on the march (Judges ib.); the poet perhaps thinks of falling stars. In later times the stars are spoken of as "the hosts of heaven."

The stars stand in God's presence, to the right and the left of God's throne (I Kings 22:19; II Chronicles 18:18); they serve Him (Neh. 9:6; Ps. 103:21), and praise Him (Ps. 103:21, 148:2). Like the kings of earth, they may be consigned by God's judgment to the nether world (Isa. 24:21 et seq.); and God will in future execute judgment among them as among the nations of earth (Isa. 34:4 et seq.). Reverence is offered to the stars as living creatures (Jer. 8:2).

At the head of this starry host stands a "captain of the army" (Josh. 5:14; Dan. 8:11); according to the passage in the Book of Daniel, he was the star highest in altitude as well. By this designation the planet Saturn was probably intended, the farthest removed from earth and therefore the highest in the heavens, and which was held by the Assyrians to be the "bellwether" of the flock. This starry army belongs to God; hence the frequent expression "God of hosts" indicates that God is the actual leader of the heavenly array.

Zechariah 4:1–10 recounts a vision of a menorah (seven branched candelabrum used as decoration in the Tabernacle from the time of Moses, and later in the Temple in Jerusalem.) Taking this interpretation to its extreme, this passage can be viewed as calling the seven planets the "seven eyes of God", just as the planet Saturn was the eye of Anu, lord of heaven among the Babylonians. It would appear, therefore, that they were no longer considered independent beings, and of course the other stars likewise. However, this vision is a visual parable, not necessarily a physical object, and it does not mention stars: therefore the interpretation that it refers to the seven planets is not obvious from the text (Compare Revelation 1:20)

Removing the above doesn't leave much. Doug Weller (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a general theme running throughout Wikipedia where a few editors have placed OR into several articles trying to make a case for a "flat earth bible". Good luck countering it. I've removed it as it was tagged since June 2007. --Faith (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
uh-huh. The "flat Earth Tanakh" that you find in pretty much any encyclopedia you care to consult is the result of a WP:CABAL. While your ideas of a "spherical Earth Tanakh", which you cobble together from sources like Strong (1907) is what Wikipedia should tout. I say good luck pushing that agenda. dab (𒁳) 10:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
context, FaithF's reference to Strong (1907) is "Strong pointed out idiomatic usage of moonlight and sunset are still prevalent in current times as in ancient times, and that firmament has been used in literature where no one would suggest the author believed in flat earth or solid firmament theology". Strong is an early 20th century Baptist apologist who attempts to show there is no contradiction between the Bible and modern astronomy. He does that by claiming that the Bible is poetic and not to be taken literally. Fair enough, but the claim that the Bible was never intended to be read literally is hardly the same as claiming there isn't a notion of a flat Earth in the text, literal or not. Let alone the positive claim of the presence of the notion of a spherical Earth, of which I am not sure whether FaithF is trying to make it, or just being very suggestive towards the effect without actually making the claim. dab (𒁳) 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The removed text does seem to be rather dubious, as the Bible actually portrays the stars as small lamps attached to the Firmament (which fall to earth if knocked off), rather than being visible through the firmament. I'll put up a new section on "celestial bodies". --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
...OK, it's up. I've also taken off the "unreferenced" tag, as the article isn't completely unreferenced: but more references are needed. I'll go looking when I have the time. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've inserted the entire Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic. It's obviously dated, but it will provide a good basis for further work on the article. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

now, please let us not play games with littering the text with {{fact}} tags. I have imported the text as-is from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Its source is thus perfectly in the open and verifiable. Discussion may still revolve around alleged bias of the CathEnc (ostensibly a religious, more specifically Roman Catholic source, although a very erudite one), or of later (post-1913) scholarship that needs to be added to the CathEnc discussion. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the Catholic Encyclopedia open-source under the same license as Wikipedia? What're the copyright considerations in copying directly from it? Shamanchill (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any copyright notices on the Catholic Encyclopedia, so the question above still remains. Comments, or should this be reverted and the CE version used to re-write, along with non-RC sources? Shamanchill (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, don't you people have anything better to do? For what it's worth, I've removed two sections giving the thoughts of the Catholic Church and the American Creationists on this vexed question - neither are really groups that I'd look to for impartiality, though perhaps I'd put the Catholics slightly ahead. Beyond that, here are some thoughts: Cosmology deals with the shape of the universe, as opposed to its origins, which is cosmogenesis. So, the article needs to tackle, first up, what shape did the ancient Hebrews see in the cosmos. The evidence is conflicting: sometimes they seemed to have believed in a circular cosmos with a square inhabited world at the centre, a la Mesopotamia, other times a rectangular cosmos in the Egyptian pattern. Maybe that's not surprising, considering that they lived in between Egypt and Mesopotamia, and that the biblical texts were written over many centuries and by many people. (Noah's ark is rectangular, and a model of the universe; elsewhere we're told quite clearly that the world is circular: P was Egyptian, Y apparently not). Next up, the details: what's a raqia when it's at home, and a Sheol, and Tehom? How many heavens were there? (certainly more than one - the Hebrew is in the plural). Other stuff along these lines. Then maybe history: As noted above, the bivle took many years to write, and has many authors. Some of them read Greek, some read Akkadian. What did the Bible take from the Babaylonians, and the Greeks? What influence did Philo of Alexandria have? (don't just say who-he, you sound like the eponymous hero of The Golden Ass with the transvestites). PiCo (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Old deletion

[While reviewing the edits of a disruptive user I noticed he deleted the following material from this page. Although the content was overtly critical, I cannot help but think its removal was merely an act of censorship of an opposing view. The edit was referenced and should have been, at minimum, reworked and further contextualized. In any case here it is for your consideration. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ]


The various authors of the Christian Bible provide sporadic glimpses of their insight regarding astronomy. These glimpses may be stitched together to form a Biblical impression of the physical universe. As demonstrated below, the meaning of Biblical scriptures are often debated due to translational ambiguities as well as metaphorical and allegorical interpretations; see Biblical literalism.

Artistic portrayal of human curiosity and Biblical cosmology known as the Flammarion woodcut. Greater artistic license may have been taken to illustrate the unknown heavens beyond the firmament.

Biblical scriptures invalidating modern scientific astronomy

Presented below is an incomplete list of Biblical scriptures which have been used to explain phenomena in the field of astronomy. Such scriptures have been used in the past as justification to persecute heretics such as Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno. Many of these scriptures are used by modern Biblical literalists to sincerely explain astronomical phenomena. The "Association for Biblical Astronomy" and the "Flat Earth Society" both reject as "theory" the concept of a nearly spherical Earth. These rejections continue despite those who argue that this scientific "theory" should now be simply considered an observation. However, a true believer can value Biblical dogma over personal observations. This type of philosophy, called religion, holds that divinely inspired dogma is unerring, while our senses can be deceived. This can be analogous to the manner in which a scientist can suspend interpretation of observations (such as at an illusionist's performance) until observing such phenomena in a controlled environment; see experiment. With religion, referring back to divinely inspired dogma such as the Bible can substitute for experimentation to achieve proper interpretation of natural observations.

Astrology is Biblically validated

Celestial bodies are sentient beings

Which can be subjected to torture if disobedient

Creation of the universe in six days

Earth:

Can be moved through great violence

Cannot be moved

Hangs upon nothing

Has corners

Has four corners

Is circular

Is flat

And has a bottomless pit

Is supported by pillars

Shall fall, and not rise again

Shall pass away (& Heaven too)

Shall remain forever

Year has precisely 364 days

Heaven (firmament) is a roof which:

Can be bent

Can be opened

Has a foundation or pillars

Is a hardened dome

Is like a tent of curtain

Separates water above the firmament from Earth

Will be rolled up like a scroll

Misc. observations regarding time or planetary physics

Sundial moves in reverse

Stars:

Are set in the firmament

Can be cast to Earth without engulfing the Earth

Can be sealed away

Can come out of men

Move around the Earth

Will be tortured for misbehavior; See wandering stars

Sun and Moon:

Are of equal dimensions

Are set in the firmament

Are stowed away after setting

Move around the Earth

Preside over all creation, and over all the stars

Damn straight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.181.198 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war: what is cosmology? For şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ

We are approaching an edit war. Every time I edit, you revert. I've said this in edit summaries but I'll say it again: the word "cosmology" means the shape of the cosmos. It does not, NOT, mean questions of heaven and hell, let alone eschatology. We have articles on those subjects if you want to contribute to them. This article is called Biblical cosmology, which by definition means the shape/formation/nature of the cosmos (universe, if you like) as conceived in the bible. If you can accept this, we can proceed - by deleting all the irrelevant material on heaven, hell, etc. If you cannot - and I very strongly suspect you cannot - then we need to go at once to ANI and stop wasting time. I say that because I have no doubt that you're sincere, and want this material on heaven etc to remain, and believe that you're right and I'm wrong. I have the same belief, but opposite. I think the only real hope for a resolution is through going outside out own charmed circle of two. PiCo (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

One point: cosmology is not limited to the shape of the universe. Even physical cosmology is not that limited. Cosmology includes the study of the origin, nature, and fate of the universe. In religious terms then, it includes eschatology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's say that we agree that cosmology means the shape of the cosmos.
Heaven and hell, are part of the cosmos... unless you think that they do not exist. But then that is your WP:POV, but it is not a NPOV, it is yours. Biblical writers have held that they do exist. (They exist already, not just later. For example, read 2 Peter 2:4.)
To delete these views from Biblical cosmology would to create a censored and misleading view of what Biblical cosmology is. Wikipedia is not censored. I am not, however, trying to keep eschatology in or out.
Let me put it this way. Just because "cosmology" means one thing (because of the assumptions underlying science, of which "cosmology" is a subdiscipline) does not mean that "Biblical cosmology" just means Biblical views on the same things of which "cosmology" is a study. Different combinations of words mean different things. Any book or article on Biblical cosmology covers heaven and hell-- because that is what this subdiscipline of Biblical theology means. Wikipedia would be censored to do otherwise. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I can see that we aren't going to come to any agreement, so I'll take this to ANI. I'll leave a message on your Talk page. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
While you "see that we aren't going to come to any agreement" I am left in the dark as to why that would be so, or even what your views are on the issue(s). Saying that they your views are "the same... but opposite" does not really consitute a discussion. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've left you confused about my problems with the article and my proposals for re-writing it. For the fist, here's the contents tablet from the article at the moment (skipping the lead):

  • 1. Stellar firmament
  • 2. Celestial bodies
  • 3. Heaven and Olam Haba
  • 3.1 Jewish view
  • 3.2 Christian view
  • 4. Hell and Gehenna
  • 4.1 Jewish view
  • 4.2 Christian view
  • 5. Angels
  • 5.1 Cherubim
  • 5.2 Archangels
  • 5.3 Interaction with angels in the New Testament

Very little of this actually IS cosmology, and what is, isn't treated in an appropriate manner, but instead as theology. The phrase "stellar firmament", for example, is just about meaningless in terms of the way biblical scholars discuss biblical cosmology - check it out in the books I put in the bibliography (start with Knight on Cosmology from the Mercer bible dictionary, he's quite straightforward). In any case, the "firmament" is only one part of the cosmos as the bible conceives it - it's the solid dome that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below. Before mentioing the firmament you have to deal with that bigger picture, of the earth as a kind of bubble floating in the "waters", one that actually needs a "firmament" in order to stay dry and habitable.

Then next you have "celestial bodies" - but the celestial bodies are just one small part of the cosmos, so where's the rest? How do the celestial bodies relate to the firmament? to the heavens? What about the earth itself? The "pillars" of the earth? The "mountain of God"? The "storehouses" of wind and snow? All these are part of the biblical cosmology, but you don't mention them.

Then you get on to a long series of sections about heaven and hell and angels, largely based on post-biblical theologians. That's fine for the relevant articles, but it doesn't touch on what the bible itself has to say about these things. Again, look in the books - use relevant sources, such as I've provided, not medieval theologians.

I hope it's now clearer why I find the existing article not just inadequate, but largely irrelevant. Now for what I'd like to replace it with:

  • 1. ORIGINS AND FORM: A discussion of the fact that the OT cosmos is pretty much identical to the Babylonian one (not my personal view - it's in the books), and what that is - a "bubble universe" of heavens, earth and underworld (not hell - that's a post-biblical concept), protected by a solid firmament, floating in an infinite ocean of cosmic waters, formed by a single creator-god (a major difference from the Babylonian model) whose own creation/origin is not explained (another major difference).
  • 2. HEAVENS, EARTH AND UNDERWORLD: description of these elements, including the single earth-continent, the "bitter river" and outlying "island-mountains", the central position of Jerusalem, the "Mountain of God", the "hosts of heaven", Sheol, etc. (To repeat, this is all in the books).
  • 3. SECOND TEMPLE AND NT Changes in the last two centuries BC and AD, including an outline of the development of Christian cosmology.

Now, please, read the books, starting with Knight, then read Walton and Hiebert, and then you'll be able to hold an informed discussion. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is "Biblical"?

A more obvious problem with the article, to me, is that much of it is not about the cosmology expressed in the OT or NT, i.e. it's not about Biblical cosmology. This article isn't supposed to be about the "Jewish view" or the "Christian view" sourced to the Mishnah or particular denominations or "modern theologians", but about the various cosmological views set out in the Bible. As an example, a brief mention of angels could be appropriate in describing heaven as a place in the Biblical view of the cosmos, but most of what is there about angels belongs elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The hell section, however-- and maybe others-- still should start with (the vague ideas of) Sheol, and then compare and contrast it with the Hell/Gehenna and Hades/Sheol in the NT. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 17:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that we have to concentrate on the bible's own views on cosmology, not the views of later theologians.
Can I alert everyone to the fact that ItsZippy has volunteered to mediate? It's on the thread at the DRN. He says, "Firstly, we need to come to agreement over exactly what cosmology encompasses." He also wants us to have the discussion on the DRN page. So, I suggest that anyone who wants to be involved gets their definition of "cosmology" and notes it on the thread there (I'll open a new subsection). You might find the books in the Bibliography section of the article useful. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

First line of lead: defining "biblical cosmology"

The discussion on the DRN has been about defining "biblical cosmology". Following that, I'm replacing this sentence in the lead:

with this:

  • "Biblical cosmology is the bible's understanding of the universe as an organised, structured entity. It encompasses a comprehensive view of all reality, including the origin, order, meaning and destiny of all that exists."

There are two sources, both given in the main article page though I've omitted them here.

The next stage for discussion is just what this "organised, structured entity" looked like, according to the bible. I've started the discussion on the DRN page. PiCo (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I've introduced some revisions to the structure of the article. These are:

  • Sources. Section on how we know what we know. It's a common idea that Genesis 1 is the last word on Biblical cosmology, but this is far from true: there are accounts of creation an cosmology all through the Old Testament, including Psalms, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Proverbs, Job and other books. There are also accounts of the shape of the cosmos in the New Testament, such as Paul's famous visit to God in the "Third Heaven" and the account of heaven and hell in Revelation. We need to tell the readers about this, and also to alert them that the sources are incomplete and that the concepts change over time (there seems to be only one heaven in the Old Testament, although there may be more).
  • Origins. Meaning the bible's ideas on how the world was created. Again there are a lot of misconceptions among readers, mostly because they never get past Genesis 1. This section should also include the ways the bible sees the world ending - the oldest Old Testament books don't see it ending at all, but around the time of Daniel the idea developed that it would end, and this is seen most clearly in Revelation.
  • Structure. This is the biggest section, and has subsections for the three parts of the biblical cosmos, namely the heavens, the earth and the underworld. These sections should also deal with the inhabitants of each of the three zones - God and angels, the geography of the earth (notably the sacred mountains such as Zion and Sinai and sacred gardens like Eden, and of course the Temple), and the underworld and how its inhabitants communicate with the living.

There are a great many books now listed in the bibliography. These should be enough to write the article on a scholarly basis.

I've filled in a few of the new sections from these sources (the refences are given), others, like the subsection on Earth, are just filler and are not meant to be permanent (no references given). PiCo (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I think you should also make clear what you see as not belonging in the article, which for me would include:
  • Theological interpretations within various religious traditions.
  • The relationship between Biblical cosmology and actual cosmology; this article should neutrally present the accounts in the OT and NT in their own right.
An issue which I would expect to see included is some discussion of the relationship between Biblical cosmology/cosmologies and those prevailing in surrounding cultures at the time the Biblical sources were written down. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm moving these sections here following comments on the Talk page above that we should not have material on post-biblical theological perspectives. They could possibly be merged with the relevant articles on Heaven, Hell etc, but many of them seem to be simple copy-and-paste anyway. PiCo (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish view of heaven

See also: Olam Haba

The Jewish concept of the afterlife, sometimes known as olam haba, the World-to-come, is not precise. Originally, the two ideas of immortality and resurrection were different but in rabbinic thought they are combined: the soul departs from the body at death but is returned to it at the resurrection. This idea is linked to another rabbinic teaching, that men's good and bad actions are rewarded and punished not in this life but after death, whether immediately or at the subsequent resurrection.[1] Around 1 AD, the Pharisees are said to have maintained belief in resurrection but the Sadducees are said to have denied it (Matt. 22:23).

The Mishnah (c. 200) lists belief in the resurrection as one of three essential beliefs necessary for a Jew to participate in it. The Mishnah has many sayings about the World to Come, for example, "Rabbi Yaakov said: This world is like a lobby before the World to Come; prepare yourself in the lobby so that you may enter the banquet hall."[2]

While all classic rabbinic sources discuss the afterlife, the classic Medieval scholars dispute the nature of existence in the "End of Days" after the messianic period.[citation needed] While Maimonides describes an entirely spiritual existence for souls, which he calls "disembodied intellects," Nahmanides discusses an intensely spiritual existence on Earth, where spirituality and physicality are merged.[citation needed] Both agree that life after death is as Maimonides describes the "End of Days."[citation needed] This existence entails an extremely heightened understanding of and connection to the Divine Presence. This view is shared by all classic rabbinic scholars.[citation needed]

Although Judaism concentrates on the importance of the Earthly world, all of classical Judaism posits an afterlife. Jewish tradition affirms that the human soul is immortal and thus survives the physical death of the body. Orthodox Judaism maintains the tenet of the bodily resurrection of the dead, including traditional references to it in the liturgy.[citation needed] Conservative Judaism has generally retained the tenet of the bodily resurrection of the dead, including traditional references to it in the liturgy. However, many Conservative Jews interpret the tenet metaphorically rather than literally.[3] Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have altered traditional references to the resurrection of the dead ("who gives life to the dead") to refer to "who gives life to all". Conservative Judaism has retained the traditional language although some interpret it non-literally.[citation needed]

Christian view of heaven

Main article: Heaven (Christianity)

Traditionally, Christianity has taught Heaven as a place of God, angels, and the elect.[4] In most forms of Christianity, belief in the afterlife is professed in the major Creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, which states: "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Different denominations and groups have been divided over how people gain this eternal life. Roman Catholics also generally believe in a state of Purgatory for a period of purification and suffering until one's nature is perfected, valid only for venial sin.[5] Other denominations believe in an Intermediate state between death and resurrection from the dead.

In Christianity, concepts about the Kingdom of Heaven are also professed in several scriptural prophecies of the new (or renewed) Earth said to follow the resurrection of the dead — particularly the books of Isaiah and Revelation and other sources of Christian eschatology. The resurrected Jesus is said to have ascended to heaven where he now sits at the Right Hand of God and will return to earth in the Second Coming. Many also believe Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven. The Book of Revelation mentions a War in Heaven between Michael the Archangel and his angels against the Dragon (or serpent) and his angels, the later commonly known as the Fallen angels.

Jewish view of hell

Judaism has a tradition of describing Gehenna (Hebrew: Gehinnom), but it is not Hell. It is rather a sort of purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life. In both Rabbinical Jewish and Christian writing, Gehenna, as a destination of the wicked, is different from Hades, or Sheol.

Gehenna is a term derived from a geographical site in Jerusalem known as the Valley of Hinnom. The site was initially where apostate Israelites and followers of various Ba'als and false gods, including Moloch, sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6). In time it became deemed to be accursed and an image of the place of destruction in Jewish folklore.[6][7]

Eventually the Hebrew term Gehinnom[8] became a figurative name for the place of spiritual purification for the wicked dead in Judaism, a site at the greatest possible distance from heaven. According to most Jewish sources, the period of purification or punishment is limited to only 12 months and every shabbath day is excluded from punishment.[9] After this the soul will ascend to Olam Ha-Ba, the world to come, or will be destroyed if it is severely wicked.[10]

Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt." The Book of Isaiah does not mention Gehenna by name, but the "burning place" 30:33 in which the Assyrian army are to be destroyed, may be read "Topheth", and the final verse of Isaiah which concerns the corpses of the same or a similar battle, Isaiah 66:24, "where their worm does not die" is cited by Jesus in reference to Gehenna in Mark 9:48.

The picture of Gehenna as the place of punishment or destruction of the wicked occurs frequently in the Mishnah in Kiddushin4.14, Avot1.5; 5.19, 20, Tosefta t.Bereshith 6.15, and Babylonian Talmud b.Rosh Hashanah 16b:7a; b.Bereshith 28b. Gehenna is considered a Purgatory-like place where the wicked go to suffer until they have atoned for their sins. It is stated that the maximum amount of time a sinner can spend in Gehenna is one year, with the exception of five people who are there for all of eternity Sanhedrin 7.

The Kabbalah explains it as a "waiting room" (commonly translated as an "entry way") for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 11 months, however there has been the occasional noted exception.

According to Jewish teachings, hell is not entirely physical; rather, it can be compared to a very intense feeling of shame. People are ashamed of their misdeeds and this constitutes suffering which makes up for the bad deeds. In addition, Subbotniks and Messianic Judaism believe in Gehenna, but Samaritans probably believe in a separation of the wicked in a shadowy existence, Sheol, and the righteous in heaven.

Christian view of hell

Main article: Christian views on Hell

Gehenna, or Hell, is cited in the New Testament and in early Christian writing to represent the final place where the wicked will be punished or destroyed after resurrection. To Biblical authors, Hell exists already. For example, 2 Peter 2:4 speaks of it in the past tense.

Hell, in Christian beliefs, is a place or a state in which the souls of the unsaved will suffer the consequences of sin. The Christian doctrine of Hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where Hell is typically described using the Greek words Gehenna or Tartarus. Unlike Hades, Sheol, or Purgatory it is considered an ultimate destination for the soul, and those damned to Hell are without hope. In the New Testament, it is described as the place or state of punishment after death or last judgment for those who have rejected Jesus.[11] In many classical and popular depictions it is also the abode of Satan and of Demons.[12]

Hell is generally defined as the eternal fate of unrepentant sinners after this life.[13] Hell's character is inferred from biblical teaching, which has often been understood literally.[13] Souls are said to pass into Hell by God's irrevocable judgment, either immediately after death (particular judgment) or in the general judgment.[13] Modern theologians generally describe Hell as the logical consequence of the soul using its free will to reject the will of God.[13] It is considered compatible with God's justice and mercy because God will not interfere with the soul's free choice.[13]

In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the promised, coming Kingdom (Mark 9:43–48).[14] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).

Only in the King James Version of the bible is the word "Hell" used to translate certain words, such as Sheol (Hebrew) and both Hades and Gehenna(Greek). All other translations reserve Hell only for use when Gehenna is mentioned. It is generally agreed that both sheol and hades do not typically refer to the place of eternal punishment, but to the underworld or temporary abode of the dead.[15] Hades is portrayed as a different place from the final judgement of the damned in Gehenna. The Book of Revelation describes Hades being cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna) (Revelation 20:14). Hades the temporary place of the dead is said to be removed for ever and cast into the Lake of Fire commonly understood to be synonymous with Gehenna or the final Hell of the unsaved.

Many modern Christians understand Gehenna to be a place of eternal punishment called hell.[16] On the other hand, annihilationists understand Gehenna to be a place where sinners are utterly destroyed, not tormented forever.

Angels

Main articles: Angel and Heavenly host

Most descriptions of angels in the Bible depicte them as messengers of God or in military terms. For example in terms such as encampment (Gen.32:1-2), command structure (Ps.91:11-12; Matt.13:41; Rev.7:2), and combat (Jdg.5:20; Job 19:12; Rev.12:7).

The angels are represented throughout the Bible as a body of spiritual beings intermediate between God and men, and that angels are created beings, per Psalms 8:4–5, Psalm 148:2–5, and Colossians 1:16.

Many Christians regard angels as asexual and not belonging to either gender as they interpret Matthew 22:30 in this way. Angels are on the other hand usually described as looking like male human beings. The few names that are given are also masculine. And although angels have greater knowledge than men, they are not omniscient, Matthew 24:36.

Main article: Cherub

Cherubim are depicted as accompanying God's chariot-throne (Ps.80:1). Exodus 25:18–22 refers to two Cherub statues placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant, the two cherubim are usually interpreted as guarding the throne of God. Other guard-like duties include being posted in locations such as the gates of Eden (Gen.3:24). Cherubim were mythological winged bulls or other beasts that were part of ancient Near Eastern traditions.[17]

Main article: Archangel

This angelic designation might be given to angels of various ranks. An example would be Raphael who is ranked variously as a Seraph, Cherub, and Archangel.[18] This is usually a result of conflicting schemes of hierarchies of angels.

The New Testament includes many of interactions and conversations between angels and humans. For instance, three separate cases of angelic interaction deal with the births of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. In Luke 1:11, an angel appears to Zechariah to inform him that he will have a child despite his old age, thus proclaiming the birth of John the Baptist[19] And in Luke 1:26 the archangel Gabriel visits the Virgin Mary in the Annunciation to foretell the birth of Jesus Christ.[20] Angels then proclaim the birth of Jesus in the Adoration of the shepherds in Luke 2:10.[21] Angels also appear later in the New Testament. In Luke 22:43 an angel comforts Jesus Christ during the Agony in the Garden.[22] In Matthew 28:5 an angel speaks at the empty tomb, following the Resurrection of Jesus and the rolling back of the stone by angels.[23] Hebrews 13:2 reminds the reader that they may "entertain angels unaware".[24]

Finished

I've pretty much finished what I want to do with this article, and I thank you all for letting me take so many liberties with the original. Now, please, introduce your own edits, or make suggestions and ask questions. (Just noticed that the lead needs to be made a bit more comprehensive). PiCo (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you have done an excellent job! The article is hugely improved, and now has a thoroughly encyclopaedic feel. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Peter. I really do have to be very self-disciplined now and leave it alone! Can't stop polishing the punctuation. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently suggests the "Bible's understanding of the universe". The Bible is a book and has no human understanding; this is personification or anthropomorphism. A more reasonable statement would be about ". . . the understanding the authors of the Bible had about the universe . . .". Grantmidnight (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ascents to heaven

Carlaude believes that Edward Wright is wrong in thinking that the Old Testament doesn't allow humans to go to heaven. I might just point out that Wright is a leading expert on this particular area of OT/Christian studies, and therefore a good source.It's not for us to second-guess him. So the question is, have I misinterpreted Wright? I don't believe so. He says (and I think this is where Carlaude is getting his idea from) that "early Jewish and Christian literature rather consistently locates Elijah in heaven". The key phrase here is "early Jewish" (we can ignore "early Christian" since we're talking about the OT). As Wright and other OT scholars use it, this means books written between c.400 BC-100 AD. Prior to that the religion is called Yahwism (in scholarly works, that is), or sometimes First Temple Zionism. Early Jewish literature means works such as Maccabees (Elijah because of unrelenting zeal for the Torah was taken up into heaven" - 1 Macc 2:358. quoted by Wright on page 133). It also includes works such as First Enoch, which relates Enoch's visit to heaven. Please read both the books by Wright (actually one book and one article) from the bibliography for more details. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming any sort of such thing as Wright being wrong nor right; it does not even matter what either myself or PiCo think on the issue.
My point is that many people view the issue differently than Wright does and to state Wright's view as pure fact, as Pico wishes to, implies that we all know Wright is correct-- or at least that there is very widespead aggrement on the issue.
As I have said elsewhere, not only is it clear that others dissagree-- and in fact I have never even heard of such a view on the two OT figures being taken to "ends of the earth"-- even Wright himself is clearly aware that others think the two were taken into heaven.
Furthermore, citing a 2nd RS is not needed just to state the name of the 1st RS in this way. -- şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 21:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You say that "many people" view the issue differently to Wright: who are these people? Wright is Head of the Department of Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona and President of the W. F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research - pretty good credentials. He's written many books and articles and is frequently quoted for his work in the area of early beliefs concerning heaven and hell. I'd say he's pretty reliable. The existing wording can stay till you provide a good reason to change it. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Are claiming that Wright is incorrect in thinking that many people do not hold his view? Or do you think that the world has read his one book and one article and now all people do hold his view, being newly conviced since the time he wrote?
Read my post above for the reasons to state Wright's POV as Wright's POV. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 08:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than engage in an edit war, I suggest we go to the admins for a ruling.

Sure, or just a 3rd opinion.
In the mean time, per WP:BRD, etc., you should restore this part of the article, to the way it was before your large number of recent edits-- or just remove it if it was then not even then extent. -- şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop re-reverting the text to your edit.
Per WP:BRD your Bold edit, once it has been Reverted, should be Discused until there is WP:CON . şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 08:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ascents to heaven

Wright is a scholar, you are not. PiCo (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Wright a scholar, and a RS, but you have no information on me being a scholar or not. Nor does it even matter if either I or you are scholar.
PiCo is try to argue that Wright is correct-- and that just doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not about what is correct, or even what you or I think is correct. It is about sources. Wright is a source with pretty good credentials and we should keep him. But that does not make him automatically correct. Wikipedia just reports what sources say-- as what sources say, and not as the "truth."
As if PiCo is not way out of line alreay, PiCo has now claimed that "Wright is a RS, not a POV".
This is very center of PiCo blind spot! Of course Wright is a point of view-- a reliable source is nearly by definition a "point of view"!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm looking at the dispute now; it might take a little while for me to get the dispute straight. Could you verify that the edit in question is this? From what I read, y'all are disputing the prominence given to the conclusions of Wright that, in the early Judaic system, humans went to Sheol (i.e. underworld) when they died, rather than going to a heaven or hell based on their life. PiCo is arguing that, as a reliable source, Wright and his conclusions should be given prominence, and Carlaude is arguing that, since that's not the generally-accepted notion, his views should be toned down or removed. Is that about right? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after reading further, I think I understand enough to give a third opinion. I think PiCo's wording is acceptable, iff Wright's claims are widely-held and/or not contentious within the circle of ancient Jewish historical experts. My question to Carlaude is similar to PiCo's above: can you find a scholarly, reliable source that disagrees with Wright? Is the preponderance of opinion among experts that his ideas are erroneous or at least controversial, and can you find material that has been published by these experts saying as much? If so, we should qualify Wright's conclusions as in your wording and add the material from other ancient Jewish historians that disagree with him. If you're correct that it's a minority view among experts, then we should think about rewriting that section to decrease the weight put on his views. Otherwise, there is no reason to qualify them by adding "X claimed that Y."
Look at the article about neutral point of view, specifically the bullet that reads:

Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Also look at the article about reliable sources, specifically the section labeled "Some types of sources", where it says, "Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." (emphasis mine) So, the important question is: do other reliable sources contest these conclusions of Wright's? If so, you should post those sources here, and we'll discuss what needs to be done (which would probably include the formulation "Wright claims that X"). Until then, we should keep the use of Wikipedia's voice, and avoid the "Wright claims X" formulation. And regardless of the above, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If you would like other reliable sources that contest the obscere conclusions of Wright's, then I will look and we can have a full-blown dualing viewpoints on the issue.
I the meantime, I still disagree with the idea that state on pov as fact unless we have RS on hand with contray views. The text still violates WP:BRD and needs correcting. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
For your first point: yep, dueling viewpoints are pretty much exactly what I'd like. I don't really know anything about this subject (never heard of Wright's theory before, myself, but I've never heard anything that contradicts it, either), so I can't make a judgement about whether his view is mainstream or not without the sources in front of me.
For your second: I'm not sure that it does violate BRD (if a violation of BRD is a thing that can even be said to exist, since it's not policy); you Boldly made the change here inserting "Wright said..."; PiCo disagreed and Reverted here; according to BRD, it should've ended there and moved to the talk page for Discussion. According to BRD, PiCo's is the version to which the article should default. Are you sure BRD is the article you mean to be linking?
Finally, for your statement about pov: I had originally typed up a big thing about history and POV with the gist that anything we think we know about anything that happened more than about 200 years ago is going to be someone's pov, but we don't go around saying, "Historian X claims that George Washington was the first President of the United States." When scholars come to agreement on what they think happened (their pov, if you must), at some point we have to accept it as the facts as we currently know them and move on. Later on, if different evidence or better analysis turns up, we re-evaluate the facts. Not a great system, but sans a time machine, it's the only one we have.
The statement "The ancient Jews believed that people go directly to Sheol when they die, do not pass go, do not collect $200" is not, in itself, a statement of opinion; it is a statement of fact. It's not necessarily true, but it's a statement of objective reality that is either true or false, and if we did have a time machine, we could go back, ask the ancient Jews, and definitively verify whether it is true or not. That's why, assuming it is uncontroversial, it doesn't need an in-text attribution. After all, we don't need to cite that the sky is blue. The same kind of logic applies here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Writ Keeper, yes, that's pretty much the issue - I say Wright is sufficiently authoritative for us to say that nobody travels to heaven in the Old Testament (not before the 4th century BC, anyway, when ideas began to change), and Carlaude believes that Wright isn't sufficiently authoritative and the idea should be presented as his alone.
If Carlaude can find some reliable sources (or even one) to support his idea that this is not the common view among biblical scholars today, I'll be happy to accommodate him. But it has to be a pretty recent source (second half of the 20th century at least), and it has to be from a biblical scholar, not from a confessional source.
Only two figures are even candidates for travel to heaven in the early OT books, Enoch and Elijah. Enoch seems to be ruled out - not even Genesis says he was taken to heaven, just that "God took him" - it doesn't say where to. Elijah is more borderline, which is why Wright is writing about him. The Hebrew is inherently ambiguous - it says he was "taken by a whirlwind shamayim" (and yes, the grammar really is as bad as that). Shamayim can mean sky or heaven, and Wright's article is an argument that in this case it means sky - Elijah went up into the sky and was transported to some place at the "ends of the earth", maybe the Garden of God. (Ancient ideas of geography weren't quite like ours - but I wonder if that's where Dorothy went in the Wizard of Oz?)
Anyway, given that Elijah is the only real candidate, Carlaude might like to look at commentaries on 2 Kings, which is where the Elijah story is found. PiCo (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes-- the text does say not where God took Enoch by name. Not every statement on where God is uses the word heaven-- but the text certainly doesn't claim God took Enoch to the "ends of the earth".
And yes, shamayim can mean heaven or sky. All the more reason for the biblical scholars to translate the word as "sky" in Genesis 5:24 in every English translation of the Bible since the mid-20th century if Enoch going to heaven "would have been unimaginable to the authors of the Old Testament". Do you think I can find an English translation of the Bible anywhere that uses the word "heaven" for shamayim in Genesis 5:24? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs)
The word "shamayim" isn't used in Genesis 5:24. It just says of Enoch that God took him.
Thanks for the references. There are far too many to add to the article - we don't need them. I do accept that there are scholars who assume that Elijah went to heaven, although at least some of your references are actually talking about the post 400 BC period - Yarbro Collins, for example. Nevertheless, I've rewritten the sentence so that that pov is included. We can use Wright as the reference - no need to keep adding new references all the time. PiCo (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No. While Yarbro Collins talks much about the post 400 BC period, his comments on Enoch going to heaven are about what Genesis 5:24 says. You can find it in section III. A. of his article. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

the sources you've found are very minor

First, a minor point, but Adela Yarbro Collins is a woman, not man (i.e., should be "her" comments, not "his").
Second, the sources you've found are very minor - they just say in passing that Elijah is taken to heaven. So he is, if one translates "shamayim" as heaven, which is perfectly permissible. But they don't critically examine the question and so don't count.
Third, Wright is one of the world's authorities on this area of belief - his examination of the question outweighs the passing mentions that you found.
Fourth, the idea that nobody went to heaven before 400 BC is the dominant one among scholars. Observe the following:
  • "People who were spared from Sheol (the underworld) were spared by being kept alive rather than by going somewhere else." (I.e., heaven was not an alternative to Sheol). "There was at least a vague idea of somewhere else to go seen in the examples of Enoch and Elijah, who avoided the grave and presumably did not go to Sheol, but these texts are very unclear about what the other alternative was." (Walton et. al. "IVP Bible Background Commentary", p.603 - the title is in our bibliography, with a click-through link).
  • "The dead person descends to Sheol..." Only in the time of the Talmud does this change: "the righteous were assigned to the Garden of Eden to receive their reward..." (Berlin, "Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion", p.205 - it's in the bibliography).
  • "Heaven is the abode of God and the celestial beings, while man has been given the earth for his habitation ... The only specific mention of an ascension to heaven is that of Elijah..." (Berlin again, p.335).
Let me know if you need any more help. PiCo (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No, PiCo. The sources you've found are minor. Whe are not just saying that Elijah is taken to the sky-- or stars-- they are saying that they are taking Enoch and Elijah to where God lives. You are just assuming you can dissmiss them because you have not bothered to look at any of them. This why I didn't really want look them all up. Because you are do busy think this is your article to slow down based on any RS that isn't one you already bought or got.
Your work(s) are only looking at passages here and there on a given subject and trying to sum them up based on there own ideas, bias, and theme of their own work.
It is much more reliable to look at book commentaries which best critically examine these questions of the text-- or encyclopedias which look at stanard ideas rather than be to sawed by the latest ideas.
While your sources are still worth including comment on here in Wikipedia, but here on Wikipedia we don't just judge the best RS and use that one. We include more than one POV to create a WP:NPOV. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 13:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Walton doesn't even deny Enoch and Elijah avoided Sheol and going elsewhere, only that it wasn't made clear.
Berlin seems only to speaking of what was nearly always the case, rather than examining the cases of Enoch and Elijah. The dictionary is not even about any Bible text, just the Jewish religion. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 14:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You're misquoting your own sources - none of them say that God could take "the likes" of Enoch and Elijah to heaven, they're the only two possible cases. The reason they're inferior sources is that they don't examine the texts - the sources I've shown you do examine the texts, and point out the rather obvious fact that there are only these two cases, and that they're not specific about where the two Es went. No doubt the reason for your sources being so superficial is that they're written for a general readership, not as reference works for academic use. Please do some more reading before revisiting this subject. PiCo (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not quoting nor misquoting sorces. If I was quoting than there would be "quotation marks". I can rewrite the article text to match my sorces better, but the easiest way to do that would involve just removing Wright's point of view.
You censoring all the sources that you disagree with, only because you disagree with them. That is WP:CENSORship.
Your souces are few and come with more built-in bais. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding just what it is you object to. If it's Wright, I'll remove him - Walton is saying the same thing and the ref to him can serve. PiCo (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In any case, editors really shouldn't link to pages without reading them. That section on censorship concerns " text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable," eg nude photos. Carlaude, no one is censoring anyone here and personal attacks are not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's cool down a bit

Before the atmosphere around here gets any more poisonous, let me apologise to Carlaude if my tone has been out of line - and re-reading what I've written, I think it sometimes has. Editing Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience for everyone, and I repeat that apology.

Now let's look at the text Carlaude wants - it's an overview of Biblical views on heaven, earth and underworld, without going into detail. This is the last text Carlaude expressed a preference for:

The Old Testament imagined a three-part universe, with heaven (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[25] Each realm had its proper inhabitants, and for men the posthumous destination was Sheol.[26] God could, however, descend from heaven and appear on earth on "holy mountains",[27] or bring the likes of Elijah and Enoch to heaven.[28][29][30][31][32] Some scholars contest that even these examples are vague or misunderstood.[33][34][35]

Let's break that out into sentences so we can deal with it more easily - plus I'll add my own comments.

  • The Old Testament imagined a three-part universe, with heaven (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[36]
That's referenced to a book by Wright, whom Carlaude has expressed a dislike for, but the same thing can be found in many other sources and can be sourced elsewhere if Carlaude wants. I think it's a good intro sentence, succinct and clear and accurate, and I don't think anyone would question it.
  • Each realm had its proper inhabitants, and for men the posthumous destination was Sheol.[37]
Wright is the source again. Once again, this is found in many sources and I don't see anyone objecting.
  • God could, however, descend from heaven and appear on earth on "holy mountains"...[38]
Something is missing - where's a sentence telling us where God's "realm" is? Anyway, that aside, there's no problem with this statement. It's sourced, and there could be multiple sources if needed. People have written books about the cosmic mountains in ANE religions.
This is way, way, way over-referenced. Strings of footnote-numbers clutter the article and shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary, which in this case it isn't.
  • Some scholars contest that even these examples are vague or misunderstood.[44][45][46]
Not true at all. Some general commentaries, like Waltke, do note in passing that Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven, but when you get into more academically oriented works you soon find that it's not so simple. For a start, Genesis never says where Enoch gets taken, and heaven is just an assumption. 2 Samuel says Elijah gets taken to "shamayim", which means simultaneously the realm of God and simply the sky. If the authors of Genesis and Samuel had meant these two were taken to heaven they could have made it clear, but they don't. I don't know of a single scholar who doubts that these two passages are vague.

So the only bit I really object to is that last sentence. I also find quite a bit not covered at all. I mentioned the lack of any note about heaven as the realm of God. It also doesn't make clear that every single Old Testament person who dies goes to Sheol - Sheol is the realm of the dead, just as earth is the realm of living men. Even Enoch and Elijah aren't exceptions to this - they were both alive at the time.

Anyway, Carlaude's preferred paragraph is pretty correct except for the last sentence, but it leaves a lot out, and it gives far too many references for a point that really doesn't need any references at all. That's why I prefer the existing paragraph - it has the same points but is more complete. PiCo (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did you ever ask for any references, if you now want to claim this doesn't need any references at all! şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least we're starting to make progress. We've narrowed it down to just whether Elijah and Enoch went to heaven or elsewhere. I think the biggest problem is that both versions of the article are assuming that their view is the mainstream view and presenting the opposing view as a minority one. If we solve that, the rest of the problems with the article should be able to be fixed amicably, so let's focus on that for the moment. Given the new sources that Carlaude has brought forth, I don't think a convincing case could be made for either view being dominant; therefore, I suggest the following formulation, or something similar:

(...)God could descend from heaven and appear on earth on "holy mountains,"(ref) but there is scholarly debate whether there are any humans who went to heaven after their death: some scholars hold that Elijah and Enoch were taken up by God and brought to heaven(ref1)(ref2), whereas others claim that they were brought not to heaven but to the "ends of the earth."(ref1)(ref2)

Thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for interposing your body. I'll be away for the rest of the week but will try to look in. Just as a first reaction, I don't think anyone, not even Carlaude's references, is claiming that Enoch and Elijah went to heaven after their deaths - they were both still alive when they were taken by God. Everyone (meaning all scholarly sources) agree that all dead Israelites went to Sheol, the only question at issue is whether two living ones were taken by God to heaven or to the Garden at the End of the Universe. A pretty minor point really, but like so many things in Wiki, it's turned into a monster. PiCo (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That's true; I overlooked that. Strike the "after their deaths," then. How about that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick look-in as I don't have much time, but I think we need to focus on what the subsection is trying to do. It's the first subsection in the section "Cosmography: shape and structure of the cosmos", and that entire section is meant to provide an overview of what that shape and structure were.
The section has five subsections. This is the first, it's titled "Heavens, earth and underworld," and it's meant to provide a general overview - the following four sections give more detail on each of these three.
I think it needs to cover the following points (all with references of course):
  • The OT cosmos was a three-level one of heaven, earth and underworld, surrounded by a cosmic ocean, both above and below. (I think this is covered).
  • Each part had its proper inhabitants, heavens for God and divine beings, earth for mankind, underworld for the dead. (Not properly stated in our existing article - needs to be expanded a little).
  • By and large the inhabitants of each realm stayed in their proper place, though God could travel to earth (holy mountains, temple) and appear to men and the dead could be summoned by the living (but Deuteronomy disapproves and later texts deny this is even possible).
  • The OT worldview changed in Second Temple/NT times (new paragraph needed, and this isn't touched on in the existing section) - about 400 BCE Greeks came up with a spherical earth surrounded by concentric heavens and this widely replaced the older OT/ANE view - but there doesn't seem to be a single view on such things as number of heavens.
  • In the same period heaven and hell became places of punishment and reward for humans, although again there seems to be no single view.
  • Also in this period there arose the extremely popular view that living humans, as opposed to dead ones, could visit heaven - several Jewish apocalypses beginning with 1 Enoch, through to Revelation.
So all in all I see the need for quite an extensive revision of the section. As I say, I can't spare much time this week, but if you and Carlaude (and anyone else who's interested) would like to make a start I'll join you later. The bibliography has plenty of sources. PiCo (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I've cut the entire subsection right back, as I kept getting into more and more detail and it's only meant as a general overview. PiCo (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's that then. The section was getting somewhat off-topic, anyway; as you said, it's only a general overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writ Keeper (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ Nicholas de Lange, Judaism, Oxford University Press, 1986
  2. ^ Pirkei Avot, 4:21
  3. ^ Emet Ve-Emunah: Statement of Principles of Conservative Judaism.
  4. ^ Ehrman, Bart. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0
  5. ^ Roman Catholic Catechism section #982
  6. ^ "The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for 'hell'." GEHENNA JewishEncyclopedia By : Kaufmann Kohler, Ludwig Blau; web-sourced: 02-11-2010.
  7. ^ "gehenna." Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary. 27 Aug. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gehenna>.
  8. ^ "Gehinnom is the Hebrew name; Gehenna is Yiddish." Gehinnom - Judaism 101 websourced 02-10-2010.
  9. ^ "The place of spiritual punishment and/or purification for the wicked dead in Judaism is not referred to as Hell, but as Gehinnom or She'ol." HELL - Judaism 101 websourced 02-10-2010.
  10. ^ [1]
  11. ^ Biblical Reference: John 3:18
  12. ^ hell - Definitions from Dictionary.com
  13. ^ a b c d e "Hell." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
  14. ^ Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for geenna (Strong's 1067)".
  15. ^ New Bible Dictionary third edition, IVP 1996. Articles on "Hell", "Sheol".
  16. ^ Metzger & Coogan (1993) Oxford Companion to the Bible’’, p. 243.
  17. ^ Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck; contributors: David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000 ISBN 0-8028-2400-5, 9780802824004), s.v. Cherubim
  18. ^ Davidson, Gustav (1994) [1967]. A Dictionary of Fallen Angels, Including the Fallen Angels. New York, NY: Macmillan, Inc. ISBN 9780029070529.
  19. ^ BibleGateway, Luke 1:11
  20. ^ BibleGateway, Luke 1:26
  21. ^ BibleGateway, Luke 2:10
  22. ^ BibleGateway, Luke 22:43
  23. ^ BibleGateway, Matthew 28:5
  24. ^ BibleGateway, Hebrews 13:2
  25. ^ Wright 2002, p. 53
  26. ^ Wright 2004, p. 127
  27. ^ Ryken et. al. 1998, p. 170
  28. ^ Waltke, Bruce K. (2001). Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan. p. 115.
  29. ^ Wiseman, Donald J. (1993). 1 & 2 Kings. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. InterVarsity Press. vol. 9. pg. 196.
  30. ^ Schultz, Richard L. (1982). "Elijah". In Elwell, Walter A. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Baker.
  31. ^ Collins, Adela Y. (1988). "Elijah". In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans.
  32. ^ Grant, Alexander C. (1988). "Enoch". In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans.
  33. ^ Wright 2004, p. 138
  34. ^ Wright 2004, p. 123ff
  35. ^ Walton et. al. 2000, p. 603
  36. ^ Wright 2002, p. 53
  37. ^ Wright 2004, p. 127
  38. ^ Ryken et. al. 1998, p. 170
  39. ^ Waltke, Bruce K. (2001). Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan. p. 115.
  40. ^ Wiseman, Donald J. (1993). 1 & 2 Kings. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. InterVarsity Press. vol. 9. pg. 196.
  41. ^ Schultz, Richard L. (1982). "Elijah". In Elwell, Walter A. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Baker.
  42. ^ Collins, Adela Y. (1988). "Elijah". In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans.
  43. ^ Grant, Alexander C. (1988). "Enoch". In Bromiley, Geoffrey W. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans.
  44. ^ Wright 2004, p. 138
  45. ^ Wright 2004, p. 123ff
  46. ^ Walton et. al. 2000, p. 603

"word" and "spirit"

These terms changed their meanings over time. The point at the end of the lead where they're mentioned is talking about the understanding of them under 2nd temple Judaism, which wasn't like either current Judaism or current Christianity. "Word" didn't mean divine revelation then, it meant the creative power of divine speech; and "spirit" had a meaning more like "power". It was only in later Christianity that the modern meanings developed, and were later still adopted into rabbinic Judaism. For these terms. see the cited sources. PiCo (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

almost exactly that of the source

You need to stop trying to impose your own ideas on this. The wording is almost exactly that of the source, and moreover reflects the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. The fact is, it would be very difficult today to find a reputable biblical scholar who would disagree with the idea that the bible is not consistent - I don't know any. If you want to dispute this, find a source who says otherwise. If you won't do this, I'll have to take it to dispute resolution, and you'll lose. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your own ideas on this. You know this is a fact because you don't know any sources that disagree with it. Wikipedia is not about what to or I think. It is about what RS think.
If it is really "almost exactly that of the source" then just make it "exactly" and cite it as a quote. By not making it a source-quote you are making it a Wikipedia quote... but it isn't WP:NPOV. If it is realty the "overwhelming majority of reliable sources" then just find one reliable source that says it is the "overwhelming majority of reliable sources." If you won't do that then it is just your point of view.
I am not claiming one, some, or many sources say "otherwise", so there purpose to find and cite sources that say "otherwise". Of course even if I did hunt down such sources, then you could again claim it doesn't need any references at all, and just try to cut the entire section. tahc chat 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but finding a source that says its the "overwhelming majority of reliable sources" is silly; figuring out what's covered by the majority of secondary sources is our job (tertiary sources can help, but we aren't required to use them). If you really doubt the reliability of the current statement in the article take it to WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RSN is about the reliablity of sources, but I am not claiming that any of the sources are unreliable.
There are issues to which sources do speak to scholarly consensus or popular opinion, and I agree this is not one of them. That is my whole point. We should not pretend this is such an issue. tahc chat 01:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cosmic geography

The Book of Enoch of is given undue weight in the section on Cosmic geography. The many details on Enoch take up half the material in that section but it is only canonical Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the one off-shoot there of. It fails even to mention its very limited canonical status.

It is also of no use explaining how biblical cosmology developed. Dispite the many details on the events there in, no detail on the Book of Enoch is connected to cosmology written before or after it. tahc chat 17:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly you're right about undue weight, but we still need to explain how OT cosmology (flat earth, cosmic sea, no human souls in heaven, etc) became NT (really Hellenistic) cosmology. Enoch was an important element in that history. Enoch is closely connected to that - Enoch's heaven has places for sinners and the just, for example. Do you have any ideas how this can be done? PiCo (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the source on 1 Enoch or any other source say anything about how OT cosmology changed to a more Hellenistic became NT cosmology? In my view, the beliefs of NT writers became more Hellenistic in general but we do not know much about the geography beliefs of NT writers, since they said very little to indicate cosmic geography.
Maybe the Enoch's caverns can be mentioned in the "underworld" section-- inside a cavern is underground, and it is much more similar to the the items in the underworld section. tahc chat 03:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I gather the point of Enoch's cavers is that they're an early instance of the separation of the dead into good and bad, one lot to be rewarded and the other to be punished. That idea isn't in the oldest OT passages but is basic to NT thinking. But what other secondary books have we got, and how would you like to revise? 103.23.134.197 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep forgetting to log in. On NT geography, you're right, there's not much in the NT books. Luke/Acts seems to put God's throne directly above Jerusalem (inferred from the description of the ascension), and Paul speaks of three heavens (the OT is more vague and seems to have just one). There's more about the end of the world (which our article includes as part of cosmological thinking - see the lead sentence), and hints about creation, even holdovers of the agon creation-myth, but it's all inference. PiCo (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Book of Enoch, dating from the period between the Old and New Testaments, separates the dead into a well-lit cavern for the righteous and dark caverns for the wicked,[1] and provides the former with a spring, perhaps signifying that these are the "living" (i.e. a spring) waters of life.[2]" tahc chat 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw your edit separating the first two paras on the grounds that they make two separate thoughts, but in fact I don't think they do - the material about the Babylonian map is only relevant because it provides an idea of they way the OT writers saw the earth (we have Keel and others saying that). I tried a revision that makes it clearer what's being got at: the OT nitself is unclear and contradictory on what happens at the edge of the circular earth, how the earth is kept out of the sea and what holds the sky up, but theologically it's quite clear that it's due to God's power.
On the Book of Enoch I think you have a point - too much on this. And nothing on NT thinking. That's largely because the NT doesn't say much on the subject - very hard to tell whether the authors thought the earth was flat or round, or what held the heavens up. I rather doubt that they had the same ideas the OT writers did, though. Anyway, I'm a bit busy in real life and will come back to this later.In the meanwhile, perhaps you could look for something on NT thought on cosmic geography? God's throne directly above Jerusalem is an obvious one. PiCo (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced the para on Enoch with a para on NT geography. I was surprised to find that the few NT passages that hint at a geography show signs of a flat earth instead of a round one - I'd expected the opposite. PiCo (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Parsons is off topic

My apologies for not logging in before doing the edit on the article - I keep forgetting to do that. Anyway, here's a detailed explanation of then reversion:

  • Parsons does say that Luke situates Jerusalem/Israel at the centre of the world,but it takes familiarity with the subject to recognise what he's saying. He says that Luke assumes his audience is familiar with the following: (1) the Table of Nations from Genesis as used in Josephus and others - this places Israel at the centre of the "nations" of the world; (2) Philo's use of the Diaspora tradition to situation Jerusalem at the centre of the "nations", meaning the world; the eschatological tradition of Ezekiel and subsequent works, which again speak of Israel as the centre of the world. He then goes on to say that although Israel is at the centre of the physical world in this world-view, "Jerusalem does not stand at the centre ofg Luke's symbolic world." Note the qualifier "symbolic". What Parsons is saying here (last para on that page, page 40) is that "Jerusalem is not the city of the end-time." In other words, Luke keeps Jerusalem at the centre of the geographic world (the table of nations and so on), but unlike his predecessors he doesn't have the nations coming to Jerusalem at the end of time. That's important.
  • The statement that only a few Jews took up the spherical earth view is referenced.
  • A reference from Aune is enough - we needn't follow Aune's own references back down the chain.
  • Overall, the original version is not only well referenced and accurate, it's also better English.

This is rather a lot, but if you want to query any of this I'm always available. PiCo (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your text is now closer to what Parsons says-- but it is still off topic. This section is not about eschatological tradition or even about eschatology. Parsons here tells us nothing here about cosmic geography-- so we don't need or want it. Please, stop edit warring and remove it. Thank you.
The reference from Aune is not enough - we do need to follow Aune's own reference... unless you read the original, then you can just cite that without citing Aune. Thank you. tahc chat 02:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Eschatology is cosmology - the lead sentence of the article says this. (The end of the world as well as its beginning, and also its purpose). And we don't need to follow Aune's sources, he's a reliable source so far as we're concerned. PiCo (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes eschatology is one area of of cosmology, but eschatology is not geography, nor cosmic geography-- and this section is about cosmic geography-- and for this and other reasons it is still all off topic. tahc chat 06:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Delumeau & O'Connell 2000, p. 24
  2. ^ Bautch 2003, p. 74

Newly uploaded image that might be useful

Although Biblical cosology is out of my realm of expertise, I've recently uploaded a file which--while simple--illustrates some of the concepts like Sheol and Tehom. Please feel free to incorporate it wherever it may be useful. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Early Hebrew Conception of the Universe
    Early Hebrew Conception of the Universe
Thanks. I've uploaded it to the article.PiCo (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in reference?

The second instance of ref 9 does not support the sentence before (The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below). Josq (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks It was the wrong page - should have been page 54, not 53.PiCo (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Issues

Moved from Biblical cosmology
 – to Talk:Biblical cosmology/Archive 1 prior to pageswap as part of fixing page history per this WP:RM/TR request — IVORK Discuss 00:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[pageswap link] — IVORK Discuss 00:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

1. NPOV

  • Article is written from a scholarly, secular point of view
  • There are no Christian theological, Jewish Rabbinic, or apologetic points of view
  • Article relies heavily on hypotheses, assumptions, and theories of historians without mentioning it
  • WP SYNTH and WP:Weasel words are utilized to push a point of view

2. Article Contradictions

  • I removed the main contradiction, though there are others
  • It was regarding "logos", if Genesis had logos in it, how can it have been influenced by the Greeks only in the New Testament?

3. False Dichotomy

  • Regarding Divine speech vs Divine battle
  • Psalms are clearly poetic

There are MANY issues as this was written by IP editors over the years. This article is in poor condition.FreeThinker2018 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you also introduced contradictions into the article. For example, changing the sentence "Nor do the biblical texts necessarily represent the beliefs of all Jews or Christians at the time..." to "The biblical texts necessarily represent the beliefs of all Jews or Christians at the time.." when the subsequent sourced explanation and quote say the exact opposite. Changing the opening sentence to insert the word "current theories" is clear POV-editing, particularly without providing any sources for or discussion of this change.
With regards to your point above:
  1. Wikipedia relies on published, independent sources. If you think there is a (Christian?) scholarly viewpoint missing, then please explain that here and provide links to the sources so we can talk about how it might be included.
  2. Your point about logos being a contradiction is not at all clear - the articles doesn't say Genesis influenced the Greeks only in the NT, rather that later Jewish thinkers influenced by Greek philosophy linked these two ideas together (and provides a source which explains this further).
  3. Your point about 'and' rather than 'vs' being a more neutral word and not setting up a dichotomy is I think an okay one, and I'd would agree to that word being changed in the article - but wikipedia works by consensus so other editors may have other ideas. Similarly, yes the Psalms are poetic, although they can also be understood to reflect an underlying worldview or cosmology. If there is an appropriate place in the article to include this (with a source that addresses that point) then I would also be open to discussing how that could be done. Melcous (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Scriptures referring Bibical cosmology

152.130.8.8: A problem with such a section is that it only uses primary sources, editor-selected quotes (quote mining) and editor interpretation. To prevent original research and synthesis, a secondary or teriary source is needed. Verses discussed in that source could be included. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the text also appears to be a copyright violation. —PaleoNeonate – 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biblical_cosmology/Archive_1&oldid=1142754114"