"He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7 ESV).
Some readers of Scripture including big-time Bible scholars snipe at this verse: they insist that it's "unscientific" or informed by ancient mythology. Therefore, some may wonder if Job 26:7 rightly can be employed to show the Bible has marks of divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
There is no unanimous answer to this query, but it seems that the passage might be used as long as one recognizes that Job is a poetic book of wisdom that does not touch directly on science nor was it written as a scientific treatise. Does this mean that the passage is inapt or irrelevant when it states that the earth hangs on nothing?
Critics will insist that the earth doesn't hang at all; they will say what keeps the earth in its place is the sun's gravity. So they contend that Job 26:7 is inaccurate because the Bible states that the earth hangs. In contrast, Robert L. Alden maintains:
"Job's assertion that the earth hangs on nothing is amazingly accurate and certainly counters the charge that the Bible's writers held that the earth stood on something else" (Job, NA Commentary).
It is amazing that Job, unlike other ancient narratives, does not claim that earth is suspended upon something else. Secondly, one must keep in mind the poetic nature of the book. Third, when Job references "pillars," it is best not to construe this language at face value. The content indicates that the inspired writer of Job likely did not believe the earth has literal pillars.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
There are a number of verses like this that eisegesis has been applied. I don't see how we can really know what is implied.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/toleh_8518.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/beli_1099.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/chug_2329.htm
https://www.naturepl.com/cache/pcache2/00551514.jpg
As tracked by Sumerian's and Egyptians.
https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.13.33?lang=bi&aliyot=0
If this means grasshopper it has one connotation but if it means locust it has another.
I think the Job example is pretty good, I mean, I've heard people force it into the old reconstructed ANE cosmologies (which I've heard are less solid now than they used to be in ANE scholarship), but the natural reading seems to imply ... well ... what the translation implies. I'm not informed enough to give an educated opinion though.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/esther/9-13.htm
ReplyDeleteLooking through the variations of this is interesting but are there any verses that without doubt mean "hung" as opposed to "skewered" on a tree post or other item?
Roman: I got the idea to post on this subject from a mutual friend. The book of Job is studied as a "wisdom text" by OT/Hebrew Bible scholars: it's a book that contains a mixture of poetry and prose, along with numerous speeches and complex themes. There is also the matter of obscure words (as Duncan noted) and the cosmology in Job, which most scholars contend is three-tiered.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, where does talah ever mean "skewered." I don't think that's the idea behind Esther 9:13 or related verses: the word seems to denote the act of hanging, even when someone is dangling from a tree.
Roman, another thing I don't like about many ANE studies is when scholars conflate beliefs or assume that the ancient Hebrews bought into almost everything that their neighbors did like the cosmologies or beliefs about deities. Lots of unwarranted assumptions are bandied about, IMO.
ReplyDeleteI that the way that the Persians were renowned for killing?
ReplyDelete"The Bible is confused over whether Haman, a Persian minister, was impaled or hanged along with his ten sons."
ReplyDeletehttps://historycollection.com/18-examples-of-crime-and-punishment-in-the-ancient-persian-empire/12/
CF - Acts 5:30
ReplyDeleteκαὶ εἶπεν Εσθηρ τῷ βασιλεῗ δοθήτω τοῗς Ιουδαίοις χρῆσθαι ὡσαύτως τὴν αὔριον ὥστε τοὺς δέκα υἱοὺς κρεμάσαι Αμαν (Esther 9:13)
ReplyDeleteὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου· (Acts 5:30)
I need to do more research on these verses, but I don't think the English idea of "skewered" is behind either passage. Maybe I'm wrong.
Talah denotation-https://books.google.com/books?id=K5ugZP7HQ6oC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=talah+hebrew+book+of+esther&source=bl&ots=X5b5FCOT0x&sig=ACfU3U0ZxvE9Mxjumh0SqG93C3y_fgwwOA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi269zWyI_0AhVpRDABHfejClI4ChDoAXoECA8QAw#v=onepage&q=talah%20hebrew%20book%20of%20esther&f=false
ReplyDeleteCompare https://books.google.com/books?id=APsdv7HSwy0C&pg=PT317&dq=talah+book+of+esther&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK95Suyo_0AhWQRDABHe4rCSoQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=talah%20book%20of%20esther&f=false
Just a hermenuitical issue ...
ReplyDeleteThe point, at least for me, is not reconstructing the original belief of the author and his original audience, that's important, but in discussing inspiration it doesn't end there. The point would be whether or not the text is compatible with later developed science in such a way that points to inspiration, not whether or not Job himself had such scientific knowledge.
It's a tricky one and it's also open to interpretation and perspective. Is being impaled on a pole also being hung on a pole? I suppose it could be.
ReplyDeleteMy point about using "tree" is that it probably just means a large piece of wood, trunk like.
So whether the earth hangs or spins on is purely dependant on the "nothing", if that is what it is saying.
Roman, I am very wary of those who point to an old text and modern understanding and cry - its a sign!
ReplyDeleteMy point was that a text could be made to fit a modern understanding. A modern understanding that could also fade away as an error in future science.
Its like all the discussions I have had with Edgar regarding creation ex nihilo and being demonstrated in the "science" that supports it. See :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoKo4M-bbVI
"Science" is silent on the subject.
One thing that I am looking at that I have never noted before is 2 Timothy 3:16,17 and what it encompasses and means in terms of the phase - "the man of god" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_God - not what is said regarding the Torah and Moses.
"The Art of Biblical History" arrived yesterday (It was lost in the postal system for a couple of weeks) & I have read to page 40 so far (no speed read). I am looking forward to reading the chapter entitled - History and modern scholarship : Why do Scholars Disagree? - Real controversy or obfuscation, I will have to wait and see.
ReplyDelete1) It's easy to stumble over English renderings: "nothing" can be ambiguous like other words and notoriously so, like creatio ex nihilio and ex nihilo nihil fit.
ReplyDelete2) I agree with Roman that this is not about Job's scientific knowledge or lack thereof, but whether the text in Job 26:& is possibly consonant with modern science, which by the way, is fallible. I certainly see "nothing" in the verse that makes it at odds with the current scientific view of the world.
3) Duncan, I concur it's wise that we not place too much trust in science, which has and can change. However, does that mean science has nothing which it can contribute to theological discussions? What about the Big Bang theory which seems to tilt things in favor of the universe beginning at some point. Yeah, I know the Big Bang can be questioned, challenged--it is not apodictic proof. However, Big Bang theory and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem suggest that the universe is not infinitely old. These points can only take us so far which is why Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas and Francis Bacon say we need both reason (science) and revelation. We don't place all of our eggs in one basket. Besides, what is the alternative to a created universe? Does the Bible give us reason to believe that everything is created but God? I would answer the last question affirmatively.
4) Duncan, hope you enjoy the book.
See also https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0045Y23UW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
ReplyDeleteFor point one we only have a single use of this word and a relative is https://biblehub.com/hebrew/veli_1097.htm and other related terms are usually translated "without". Without what?
ReplyDeleteAs for points 2 & 3 I suggest you watch Brian Cox again. Science does not point to a big bang but to a time when the universe was extremely hot and dense. It has long been said that science can track the universe to within nanoseconds of the big bang, but if you cannot track it to origin then you have no proof of that event, it stops short.
Even this - https://news.mit.edu/2020/universe-first-gravitational-waves-1209 does NOT get us to the point of origin. See also - "Big Bounce" theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL0wBq9CQLA
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwDzyr1Ivc4
ReplyDelete"God alone breathed by his own energy. Other than God there was nothing."
ReplyDeleteResponse:
ReplyDeleteThese Hebrew words with just one occurrence in the Bible are somewhat troublesome, but I believe that Job 26:7 is better translated "nothing" than "without." Again, context is the determinant as to how we translate terms. At least, it should be.
If Brian Cox said science does not point to the Big Bang, sorry, but he's wrong. I know there's no unanimous consensus in science and some scientists demur at the Big Bang Theory. However, the prevailing consensus is that Big Bang cosmology has something going for it. It's not apodictic proof but I found numerous statements that connect the Big Bang Theory with the universe's origin.
Science presents lines of evidence for the Big Bang, so there is no incontrovertible proof for this theory, but that doesn't mean no evidence exists for the Big Bang. Lastly, I will admit that the Big Bang could be wrong; nevertheless, it's the most popular theory for universal origins.
Biblically, the Bible paints God as the Creator of "all things," and of heaven, earth and all therein. Another option we have is that matter is eternal: it's hard to see how that view quares with the Bible's depiction of a Creator. Both Christianity and Judaism affirm the existence of a supreme Producer/Maker.
To conclude this post, I will present information concerning the Big Bang:
"Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos."
See https://phys.org/news/2015-12-big-theory.html
The website also calls the Big Bang, "the most accepted theory of our origins."
Next: "The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching!"
See https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/big-bang/en/
https://www.accessscience.com/content/big-bang-theory/080900 makes these statements:
"The big bang theory is the consensus cosmological framework for explaining the origin, properties, and evolution of the universe.
According to this theory, the universe began almost 14 billion years ago in an extremely hot and dense state, from which it has cooled and expanded since."
I'm not arguing that the Big Bang is correct, only that it's the consensus view of current science and the Big Bang purports to accoutn for the origin of the cosmos.
As for Job 26:7, the linguistic structure makes it highly unlikely that "without" i meant: עַל־ בְּלִי־ מָֽה׃
ReplyDeleteLikewise in Job 26:7, we find the occurrence of tohu.
ReplyDeleteRotherham: "Who stretcheth out the north over emptiness, hangeth the earth upon nothingness"
ReplyDeleteNorman Habel (Job in the OTL)) translates 26:7, "He it is who stretched out the north over the void, Who suspended the earth over emptiness;"
Habel continued: "7b. belima, literally 'without anything,' is linked here with tohu, 'chaos, void,' creating a subtle variation of the word pair tohu wabohu (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23)."
One other thought from Habel: "Here, however, the earth 'hangs' over belima, a word which clearly means 'emptiness' or 'nothing.' The parallel term tohu, therefore, does not refer to the chaos waters (as in Gen. 1:2) but to the 'void' or 'nothing' over which the canopy of the north is pitched. This is clearly the sense in several passages in Deutero-Isaiah where tohu is parallel to 'ayin, 'nothing,' nought1,' and similar terms (Isa. 40:17, 23; cf. 41:29; 44:9; 49:4)'. The north above where God dwells and the earth below where humans reside are suspended mysteriously above empty space. Whether the poet is employing ideas from Greek thought (e.g., Pythagoras; see Buttenwieser) or speculating as a poet within his own cosmological
framework is probably secondary."
Benson's commentary-
ReplyDeleteJob 26:7. He stretcheth out the north — The northern part of the heavens, which he particularly mentions, and puts for the whole visible heavens, because Job and his friends lived in a northern climate; over the empty space — Hebrew, על תהו, gnal tohu, over the vacuity, or emptiness; the same word which Moses uses, Genesis 1:2, which does not prove that the author of this book lived after Moses wrote the book of Genesis, and had seen that book, but only that Moses’s account of the creation is the ancient and true account, well known in the days of Job and his friends, and therefore alluded to here. And hangeth the earth upon nothing — Upon its own centre, which is but an imaginary thing, and, in truth, nothing; or, he means, >>upon no props, or pillars<<, but his own power and providence. Bishop Patrick’s paraphrase is, “By his wonderful power and wisdom he stretches out the whole world from the one pole to the other, which he alone sustains; as he doth this globe of earth hanging in the air, without any thing to support it.”
https://biblehub.com/text/job/9-6.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/2-8.htm
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wired.com/story/what-if-the-big-bang-was-actually-a-big-bounce/
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mpg.de/15162036/W002_Visit-to_048-055.pdf
ReplyDeletewww.livescience.com/amp/what-came-before-big-bang.html
ReplyDeleteThe point ideas making is well recognised by all, as thi article states-
"But as good as it is, we know that the Big Bang picture is not complete — there's a puzzle piece missing, and that piece is the earliest moments of the universe itself."
Red shift And other phenomenon fit just the same in big bounce.
Duncan, my point is not that "it's a sign"
ReplyDeleteBut merely that the historical reading is not the only way of reading a text, and that a scientific statement which coincides with a scientific fact, might be considered to be evidence of divine inspiration of the text, i.e. that whatever the writer of the bible personally though, God made sure correct information was included in the books that are "scripture."
Of course the science might change, so one should be careful ... but I'm not afraid of putting the bible up to challenges like this ... if (somehow) it could be proven that Jesus's body is in a tomb, that would be extremely strong evidence that Christianity was false ... that's a scientific claim.
Creation ex-nihilo is not primarily a scientific issue, and I think philosophically the arguments are extremely strong.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-models-reignite-big-bang-debate-20180131/
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I'm aware that no one can prove 100% that the Big Bang occurred: a former science professor of mine used to say that science doesn't prove anything. Roger Penrose makes similar points about the Big Bang. We can't say that it actually happened, but the same can be said for the Big Bounce.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I personally find the Big Bounce to be much less plausible than the Big Bang. Furthermore, the Bible indicates God is the only being whose existence is not contingent. Every other being owes its existence to him.
By its very nature, science cannot say what happened at the moment of creation. Science only deals with Planck time or space, but that does not mean the Big Bang is not a theory of origins.
ReplyDeleteScience doesn't have a universal consensus on many things, including time and space.
Roman, as posted above we have a verse that says the earth is not on visible pillars, however we also have verses (posted above) where is clearly states that it is on pillars. Heads you win, tails you win - How a can they BOTH be correct if it is on "nothing"?
ReplyDeleteEdgar, for "the Bible indicates God is the only being whose existence is not contingent". Which verses did you have in mind?
Science only deals with Planck time or space and on that I agree, the things that are observable and measurable.
ReplyDeleteBut big bang and bounce are both mathematical models. Bounce is far simpler.
Duncan, are you suggesting that God's existence is contingent? Does his existence depend on external factors or another being? Please show me where the Bible teaches that.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say God's existence is not contingent, I mean he does not depend on anything or anyone else for his existence: God has always been and will always be. He is the very source of existence and some would say, he is existence itself. What I'm also saying is that God is uncreated. But you're aware of Psalm 36:9; 90:2; 93:2; Isaiah 44:6; John 5:26; Acts 17:24-25; Revelation 1:8.
The Big Bang is not only based on math, but on observation like the cosmic background radiation and expanding universe. I can't say whether the Big Bounce is simpler; not sure what cosmologists have to say about that matter.
At the end of the day, the most important consideration for me is whether a theory or suggestion passes muster with the Bible. It's hard to see how the Big Bounce would gell with the idea of an eternal Creator who is a se esse and quite distinct from everything else.
ReplyDeleteThe observable phenomena are applicable to both theories. It is only the theoretical math that differs.
ReplyDelete"some would say, he is existence itself." Vs "is a se esse and quite distinct from everything else."
I am suggesting nothing apart from how verses can be used to tell something that they do not say.
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 44 talking about all creation?
"Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come— yes, let them foretell what will come."
Isaiah 44:24 might be a better choice but it is still only speaking of sky and land and what God does/works.
Duncan, well, I suppose one would have to look at the text and ask whether or not it's best read as a figure of speach, or whether it might be stating something about the world, it would require exegesis on multiple levels.
ReplyDeleteRoman, I am not sure finding a body would matter:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Luke+24%3A16
Duncan, you asked me which verses deal with God's contingency, or by implication, God's necessity. I defined contingency in my prior post; it's not just about God creating the world, but also deals with the kind of being that God is, according to special and natural revelation.
ReplyDeleteIsa. 44:6 is pertient when we discuss whether God is a contingent being like us and the universe as a whole. My existence is possible: if my parents never met, I would never have been. It's possible that I might cease to exist one day but the same cannot be said for God. As a non-contingent being, God is not dependent on anyone or on anything. So, Isaiah 44:6 calls the God of Israel (YHWH), the "first and the last." The first and last of what? Secondly, he declares there is no God before him. That part of the verse helps us to see in what sense God is "the first and the last." Jehovah's existence is not dependent on another deity or being. Contingency involves creation but is not limited to creation. It's more about God's necessary (a se esse) existence.
Notice how this source defines contingency:
Contingency is a term that occurs in philosophical discourse as well as in theology in a number of contexts and with a number of meanings. In its modern sense the English term contingency refers to events, processes, or properties that may occur, but are not certain to occur; or that have, but might not have, occurred, because they depend on factors beyond our knowledge or which themselves are contingent. Generally speaking, it refers to events, objects, and properties that could be otherwise, that do not have to be as they are, and that do not have to be at all, and for whose existence we cannot give a sufficient cause. Thus contingency covers a whole range of meanings, including “not necessary,” “by chance,” “random,” and “unpredictable.”
https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-35
There has to be some differences between the way that the Big Bang and Big Bounce account for data; otherwise, we would have a distinction without a difference. See https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/318301-big-bounce-or-big-bang-scientists-still-grappling-with-the-origin-of-the-universe
ReplyDeleteThere are more diffeences here than just math.
To the point about aseity, both Thomas Aquinas, Edward Feser and a host of others make both claims: God is existence itself and he is a se esse, which makes God distinct from any other being. This is a common statement made in Thomist literature.
Aseity: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/aseity-aseitas
ReplyDeleteDuncan, we could think of matters this way:
ReplyDelete1) Either God is necessary or God is contingent
2) God is not contingent
3) Therefore, God is necessary (i.e., God necessarily exists)
If we reject God's necessity (his necessary existence), I'm not sure what other choice Christian theists have since positing God as a contingent being is not going to cut it for a Christian.
"accounting for data" does not need different data. It is the interpretation of the data and I don't see how they can say "provable" for bang but not bounce. I am not saying that bounce is correct. I am saying that we have an even playing field of speculation. The math for bounce is simpler and more elegant so I prefer that, but I see no way of justifying one model over the other by evidence.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder how a bouncing universe affects contingency? Is Jehovah a god of dynamic energy or did he later start being a god of dynamic energy, and how would that even work for a god that does not change?
ReplyDeleteRoman, that exegesis would also have to be applied to Job 26:6 and 7.
ReplyDeletehttps://biblehub.com/hebrew/veein_369.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kesut_3682.htm
If dynamic energy is an intrinsic property of God, then it would seem it's a property he always had. Classical theism argues that God simply is his properties.
ReplyDeleteI agree it's the same data, but some models account for data better than others. Also, I will check on the simplicity issue. That's an interesting point.
Yes, it would matter, Luke 14:15-16 doesn't change the fact that he came out of the tomb ... if some how they found the tomb, and found out that Jesus's bones were there (somehow) the Christian faith is null and void, and I gotta figure out a whole new worldview.
ReplyDeleteThe point is this is a historical (and thus, in some sense, scientific) data point that my faith actually depends on ... there are not many empirical facts that my faith depends on, very few actually, but this is one of them.
As to the Job, it depends on many different things, i.e. what is the purpose of the verse, can it be applied in more than one way (one example of this is typology), can one draw more out of it than what it's meaning is historically, does it have futher implications? is it a figure of speach that ought not to be pressed?
This has to be taken on a case by case basis ... I'm afraid I cannot really give a good argument with regards to the scripture in question ... not because of the scripture itself, or the strength of the case, but I just don't have the competence to do a proper exegesis, and then argue the case.
Arguing over "big bang" vrs "big bounce" is irrelevant to God as first/cause ground of all being (which is the main sense in which he is creator in many theological systems). A bouncing universe doesn't change that at all ... since it is STILL contingent, i.e. it could have not exsited, or existed differently, be it infinite in the past or finite in the past.
To add to your post, Roman, I don't want to make an argument for what Job means, and that was never the intent of this blog entry. I was trying to show that critics who want to make an issue of the earth "hanging upon nothing" are off the mark since they overlook the whole reason for Job being written, and they ignore its poetic and sapiential properties. Did Job or the writer of the book really believe that the earth was supported by pillars? Or is that poetry and figurative speech? None of this language should be pressed too far. Nevertheless, I don't believe Job 26:7 conflicts with modern science.
ReplyDeleteI think you're correct that a bouncing universe would still be contingent. Yet, some of these cosmologists try to frame matters such that the universe did not need a Maker or Creator. Furthermore, I object to infinite universe theories on a number of grounds that include the questionable idea that an actual quantitative infinite can exist. It's also problematic for a Christian if we potentially place the universe on par with an infinite God or if we inadvertently destroy the Creator/creature divide. So, logically peaking, an infinite universe that's contingent is possible;; however, I have problems seeing how it melds with a Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung.