Taking Back Astronomy

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Taking back astronomy
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–US speaker, astrophysicist & researcher

First published in Answers Update–USA June 2006

Editor’s note: this article is adapted from a chapter of Dr. Lisle’s new book, Taking Back Astronomy. While some people consider astronomy to be a weak area of creation-origins study, this fascinating just-released book contains enough intriguing content to cause even the most hard-hearted of our day to stop and consider the book’s eye-opening findings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not commonly known that many of the Bible’s statements about astronomy went against the generally accepted teachings of the time. Undoubtedly, many of these verses would have seemed counterintuitive, and may have been difficult to believe when they were first written.

Modern science, however, has confirmed what the Bible has taught. As in all things, the Bible is absolutely correct when it teaches about the universe.

The earth is round
Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle, since it is round.

Curiously, many astronomy textbooks credit Pythagoras (c. 570–500 B.C.) with being the first person to assert that the earth is round. However, Isaiah is generally acknowledged to have been written in the 700s B.C.

The secular astronomers before the time of Pythagoras must have thought the Bible was wrong about its teaching of a round earth, yet the Bible was exactly right.

The earth floats in space
A very interesting verse to consider is Job 26:7 which states that God “hangs the earth on nothing.” This verse expresses (in a poetic way) the fact that the earth is unsupported by any other object—something quite unnatural for ancient writers to imagine.

Indeed, the earth does float in space. We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void.

Universe expansion
The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it).

This verse, too, must have seemed very strange when it was first written.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe.

When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong. Today, most astronomers acknowledge that the universe is indeed expanding.

The number of stars
Genesis 22:17 teaches that God would multiply Abraham’s descendants “as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore.” Genesis 32:12 makes it clear that this represents a number which is uncountable by humans: “the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.”

These are excellent analogies. Clearly the sand of the sea and the stars in the universe cannot be counted exactly by humans, though of course, they can be roughly estimated.

It was not always believed that the stars were so numerous. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 150) cataloged 1,022 stars in his work The Almagest.

The total number of stars that can be distinctly seen (from both hemispheres under ideal, dark sky conditions) with the unaided eye is around 10,000.

Powerful telescopes today allow us to estimate that our single galaxy alone contains over 100 billion stars. And astronomers believe that there are more galaxies in the visible universe than there are stars in our own galaxy. Modern science certainly confirms Genesis 22:17.

Confirming the Bible
Today, the reliability of the Bible is increasingly attacked. Can we really trust it in our modern age of technology and science?

As we have seen, science is not an enemy of the Bible. On the contrary, modern science has already confirmed much of what the Bible teaches about astronomy. Many of the biblical teachings are now accepted in science textbooks.

As AiG President Ken Ham has written so often (and which is the theme of the year for AiG in 2006), Christians need to take back those fields of science, like astronomy, which have been hijacked by evolutionists in order to promote their secular worldview.

------------------

I might add that the Bible says something about the Earth having been constructed on "pillars".

According to Walt Brown this may have been literally true.

See "The Hydroplate Theory" at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html
 

TheDude

New member
It was never yours to take. Its been in the traditions of every culture on the planet. Christians cant lay claim to astrology as something that was theirs and now isn't. It wasn't yours to begin with, the Hebrews maybe, but their understanding of the heavens was very limited at the time when other cultures had already mapped the stars and were predicting comets.
 

TheDude

New member
Bob, the bible also said the stars were holes poked in the heavens and that the sun revolves around the earth. The ancient Hebrews understanding of the universe, our solar system, and indeed Terra itself was limited at best.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
TheDude said:
Bob, the bible also said the stars were holes poked in the heavens and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Funny, I never ran across such things in my translation; your's must be very odd indeed.

The ancient Hebrews understanding of the universe, our solar system, and indeed Terra itself was limited at best.

You're probably right about that, which only makes it a mystery how they got the Bible right about such things. Maybe it really was "inspired by God".
 

TheDude

New member
bob b said:
Funny, I never ran across such things in my translation; your's must be very odd indeed.

Doesn't change the fact thats its in there.

You're probably right about that, which only makes it a mystery how they got the Bible right about such things. Maybe it really was "inspired by God".

Or, it could have been information passed down through Abraham who was from the city of Ur, in Sumeria. The Sumerians, who had knowledge of the stars, the solar system, and of Terra, could have influenced the OT biblical writings. Not everything needs to be "inspired by God". Men are quite capable of these things out side of "God".

The Sumerians who have the original flood story by the way, were the first civilization discovered in Mesopitamia. They were the first to have a higher maths, the writen word, theology, the after life, a pantheon of gods who all other pantheons were based on. Including the over god of "heaven and earth" Anu. Maybe it was from god, just not the Hebrew god Yhwe.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
TheDude said:
Doesn't change the fact thats its in there.

So you say. Are you a bible expert or do you believe the nonsense on atheist websites?

Or, it could have been information passed down through Abraham who was from the city of Ur, in Sumaria. The Sumarians, who had knowledge of the stars, the solar system, and of Terra, could have influenced the OT biblical writings.

Of course, or else the Sumarians could have gotten their knowledge from Noah's sons who survived until the time of Abraham.

The Sumerians who have the original flood story by the way, were the first civilization discovered in Mesopitamia. They were the first to have a higher maths, the writen word, theology, the after life, a pantheon of gods who all other pantheons were based on. Including the over god of "heaven and earth" Anu. Maybe it was from god, just not the Hebrew god Yhwe.

Or else they got the flood story (and mangled it) from Noah's sons who were of course eyewitnesses.

BTW, have you ever heard about the theory that Genesis was compiled by Moses from earlier eyewitness stories written by people like Adam and Noah?

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html
 

TheDude

New member
bob b said:
So you say. Are you a bible expert or do you believe the nonsense on atheist websites?

Some times, depends on what they're talking about. But, just because your not a Christian that doen't mean you cant talk about and explain the bible.

Of course, or else the Sumarians could have gotten their knowledge from Noah's sons who survived until the time of Abraham.

In the studies that I've done there is no evidence to sugjest this.

Or else they got the flood story (and mangled it) from Noah's sons who were of course eyewitnesses.

How could they have mangled it? It was theirs to begin with, maybe the Christians and OT Hebrews have mangled it to fit their own devices. As long as we're throwing out wild claims like that, you should consider the other side of that coin.

BTW, have you ever heard about the theory that Genesis was compiled by Moses from earlier eyewitness stories written by people like Adam and Noah?

Your going under the assumption that the Genesis account is literal, and not some symbolic story. I dont think its literal, but it is a good story explaining a few things.

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html

Another theory, nothing solid, just a theory. It is possible though that the ancient Sumerians, had the stories and tradition first, and they were passed down through the ages. Like I said, Abraham was from a Sumerian city, Ur. He was a Sumerian and would have had a working knowledge of all of these stories and tradition. The Hebrew language is based off of Sumerian. As is Akkadian, Latin, and Greek. These stories were nothing new in the area of Mesopitamia, they just had a new slant to them to fit the tribes of the Hebrews.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
TheDude said:
Some times, depends on what they're talking about. But, just because your not a Christian that doen't mean you cant talk about and explain the bible.

I was just curious where you got the unusual stories you claimed were in the Bible when I have read the Bible and never saw such stories. I doubt that people here, many of whom are pretty good Bible students have ever heard them either. So it might be useful if you could provide a reference to where you heard or saw them.

How could they have mangled it? It was theirs to begin with, maybe the Christians and OT Hebrews have mangled it to fit their own devices. As long as we're throwing out wild claims like that, you should consider the other side of that coin.

I based my judgment on comparing the stories side by side. The Bible story reads sort of like a ship's log, giving dates and so forth. The Sumerian accounts read like a Greek myth.
Try doing what I did. It may be revealing.

Your going under the assumption that the Genesis account is literal, and not some symbolic story.

I think the " symbolic" excuse has been way overdone.

I dont think its literal, but it is a good story explaining a few things.

Like what?

Another theory, nothing solid, just a theory. It is possible though that the ancient Sumerians, had the stories and tradition first, and they were passed down through the ages. Like I said, Abraham was from a Sumerian city, Ur. He was a Sumerian and would have had a working knowledge of all of these stories and tradition. The Hebrew language is based off of Sumerian. As is Akkadian, Latin, and Greek. These stories were nothing new in the area of Mesopitamia, they just had a new slant to them to fit the tribes of the Hebrews.

Why do you believe Abraham was a real person and not just another "symbol"? Does he appear in any other written account other than the one in the Bible?
 

TheDude

New member
bob b said:
I was just curious where you got the unusual stories you claimed were in the Bible when I have read the Bible and never saw such stories. I doubt that people here, many of whom are pretty good Bible students have ever heard them either. So it might be useful if you could provide a reference to where you heard or saw them.

Right on, I'll try and find them.

I based my judgment on comparing the stories side by side. The Bible story reads sort of like a ship's log, giving dates and so forth. The Sumerian accounts read like a Greek myth.
Try doing what I did. It may be revealing.

What story are you reading? How many animals were there? Two of every kind or seven of the clean kind and two the unclean kind? How many years did it take them to build it? Thats the part them seems like myth. The Sumerian accounts were there first, and are the oldest accounts.

I think the " symbolic" excuse has been way overdone.

Same with the literal.

Like what?

Why man no longer dwells in paradise, why things are the way they are. Things like that.

Why do you believe Abraham was a real person and not just another "symbol"? Does he appear in any other written account other than the one in the Bible?

I'm willing to say that some of the accounts in the bible could be based off of fact. There arent accounts for every person in history. Sumeria was a very large country that gave birth to some of the greatest civilizations in history. The very fact that Hebrew is based off of Sumerian shows that at some point in time there was a person, or persons who emigrated from Sumeria and established the Hebrew people. I use Abraham because he's convinient and was according to the biblical account from Ur, a large Sumerian city.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
TheDude said:
Right on, I'll try and find them.

I would appreciate that.

What story are you reading?

The one in Genesis. How about you? Which of the 2 other Flood stories from that region?

How many animals were there? Two of every kind or seven of the clean kind and two the unclean kind? How many years did it take them to build it? Thats the part them seems like myth. The Sumerian accounts were there first, and are the oldest accounts.

They certainly are old, but my idea is that all flood stories derive ultimately from the 8 survivors, including the several hundred stories found in all parts of the globe.

I'm willing to say that some of the accounts in the bible could be based off of fact. There arent accounts for every person in history. Sumeria was a very large country that gave birth to some of the greatest civilizations in history. The very fact that Hebrew is based off of Sumerian shows that at some point in time there was a person, or persons who emigrated from Sumeria and established the Hebrew people. I use Abraham because he's convinient and was according to the biblical account from Ur, a large Sumerian city.

Not unreasonable.

BTW have you ever read what was considered the oldest Sumerian Flood Story? I could post it if you like. It is fairly short.
 

TheDude

New member
bob b said:
I would appreciate that.

I'll do my best, what with job hunting

The one in Genesis. How about you? Which of the 2 other Flood stories from that region?

I've been reading through a few of the older deluge stories. It is reasonable to assume there was a deluge at one point, several other cultures have stories of them. Each with a different number of survivors. The part that I question in the Genisis account are the number of creatures, the number of people, and the location they were in.

They certainly are old, but my idea is that all flood stories derive ultimately from the 8 survivors, including the several hundred stories found in all parts of the globe.

I highly doubt 8 people could have repopulated the planet. No mater how busy they were. I would guess that this isn't the "one true" account, but one account that talks about a planet wide catastrophy. An earth change or something like that. They could be talking specifically about their region, and call it "the world", not knowing the extent of the planet.

Not unreasonable.

I try and not to be.

BTW have you ever read what was considered the oldest Sumerian Flood Story? I could post it if you like. It is fairly short.

I would like that. Thank you.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sumerian Flood Story http://history-world.org/sumerian_floor_story.htm

After Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag
had fashioned the black-headed people,
Vegetation sprang from the earth,
Animals, four-legged creatures of the plain,
Were brought artfully into existence
[37 lines are unreadable]
After the....of kingship had been lowered from heaven
After the exalted crown and the throne of kingship
Had been lowered from heaven,
He perfected the rites and exalted the divine ordinances...
He founded the five cities in pure places,...
Then did Nintu weep like a....
The pure Inanna set up a lament for its people,
Enki took council with himself,
Anu, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag....
The gods of heaven and earth uttered the name of Anu and Enlil
Then did Ziusudra, the king, the priest of...,
Build a giant...;
Humbly obedient, reverently he...
Attending daily, constantly he...,
Bringing forth all kinds of dreams, he...,
Uttering the name of heaven and earth, he...[...]
the gods a wall...,
Ziusudra, standing at its side, listened.
"Stand by the wall at my left side...,
By the wall I will say a word to you,
Take my word,
Give ear to my instructions:
By our...a flood will sweep over the cult-centers;
To destroy the seed of mankind...,
Is the decision, the word of the assembly of the gods.
By the word commanded by Anu and Enlil...,
Its kingship, its rule will be put to an end.
[about 40 lines missing]
All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful,
Attacked as one,
At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult-centers.
After, for seven days,
the flood sweeps over the cult centers.
After, for seven days and seven nights,
The flood had swept over the land,
And the huge boat had been tossed
About by the windstorms on the great waters,
Utu came forth, who sheds light on heaven and earth,
Ziusudra opened a window of the huge boat,
The hero Utu brought his rays into the giant boat.
Ziusudra, the king,
Prostrated himself before Utu.
-----------------------------------------
Utu is the Sun god, equivalent to Akkadian Shamash. The translation above is based on the translation by Poebel in ANET. The text was found in Nippur.
The Sumerians formulated lists of their ancient kings, and gave them extremely long reigns. The time before the flood was said to be a period of 432,000 years. Two kings from after the flood that are listed were Gilgamesh and Tammuz. Legends told about these two kings were so impressive that Tammuz entered the pantheon of Babylon and later became known as Adonis to the Greeks.
Gilgamesh became the hero of the Babylonian epic poem which bears his name, and which also contains an account of the flood. Until recently, these king lists and the names in them were thought to be purely fanciful. But in the 1930's, Sir Leonard Woolley, while excavating a building at Ur on the Ubaid level, found an inscription indicating that the structure had been erected by the son of the founder of the First Dynasty of Ur, a person up till that time regarded as fiction.
Gilgamesh, too, has been found to be a real person, with inscriptions telling of the buildings he built.
The earliest written documents were found in Uruk and are dated to 3100 BC. These texts are not deciphered and perhaps are not decipherable. Fifty to seventy percent of the signs cannot be recognized at all, and so defy analysis.
Those few signs that are recognizable appear to be logographic. There are none that represent syllables. There are no grammatical markers. There are no mood markers. Those handful that can be puzzled out take the form:

5 sheep PN receive.

Therefore, the best guess is that these earliest documents are mostly administrative and economic in nature.
When the signs are examined, they are clearly mostly abstract: that is, they have lost their supposed original pictographic form. This implies that these earliest of known tablets do not represent the first attempts at writing; the nature of the writing on them indicates considerable previous evolution in the writing system. These tablets are simply the earliest that have so far been discovered, nothing more.
 

Johnny

New member
I have always had some concerns with reading science back into a text. It is too subjective and requires a great deal of selective observation. Other religions also have examples of their religious text being "scientifically correct". Does this lend evidence to the credibility of the Qu'ran? If Isaiah mentioning the "circle of the Earth" is evidence of a round earth, then what are the references to the "corners" or "ends" of the Earth evidence of? Because of what we know now scientifically, we write those references off as literary devices. But if the Earth were flat or cube-like, Bob b's thread might include these passages as evidence the Bible is correct.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Although every astrological symbol is biblical.

Or is it the other way around?:shocked:
 

Quasar1011

New member
Granite said:
Although every astrological symbol is biblical.

Or is it the other way around?:shocked:

Absolutely false. Astrology is Satan's perversion of the truth. The truth happens to be, that the zodiac was created by God, and that it tells the story of the Redeemer of mankind.
 

Jukia

New member
Quasar1011 said:
The truth happens to be, that the zodiac was created by God, and that it tells the story of the Redeemer of mankind.

Want to explain that, especially the story of the Redeemer part, never heard that before. Thanks
 

Jukia

New member
Johnny said:
I have always had some concerns with reading science back into a text. It is too subjective and requires a great deal of selective observation. Other religions also have examples of their religious text being "scientifically correct". Does this lend evidence to the credibility of the Qu'ran? If Isaiah mentioning the "circle of the Earth" is evidence of a round earth, then what are the references to the "corners" or "ends" of the Earth evidence of? Because of what we know now scientifically, we write those references off as literary devices. But if the Earth were flat or cube-like, Bob b's thread might include these passages as evidence the Bible is correct.


Assuming that there are references to the "corners" or "ends" of the Earth it appears we just ignore those references since they do not fit into the desire to make the Bible a science text. Although perhaps the more appropriate position would be to recognize it is not a science text.
 

hatsoff

New member
bob b said:
Modern science, however, has confirmed what the Bible has taught.

Some of it has been confirmed. Some of it has been disproved.

The earth is round
Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle, since it is round.

Curiously, many astronomy textbooks credit Pythagoras (c. 570–500 B.C.) with being the first person to assert that the earth is round. However, Isaiah is generally acknowledged to have been written in the 700s B.C.

The secular astronomers before the time of Pythagoras must have thought the Bible was wrong about its teaching of a round earth, yet the Bible was exactly right.

That's all great, except for...
1) The flat-earth model of ancient Mesopotamia involved a circular disc floating in the ocean. So "circle of the earth" is quite likely a reference to that model, not a spherical earth.
2) Modern scholarship suggests chs. 40-66 were added later to the book some time after 539 BC.
3) Chs. 40-66 mentions no less than nine time the "ends of the earth," betraying a belief in a flat world by the author.
4) While Pythagorus was the earliest proponent of a spherical earth that we know about today, he wasn't necessarily the first to realize the earth was not flat.

The rest of your post deals with passages to cryptic to draw any conclusions. Certainly none of it improves the case for Biblical inerrancy.
 
Top