The Ancient Universe and the Cosmic Temple

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

If we retain the idea that God dwelling in heaven expresses divine immanence as much as divine transcendence, does that not also oblige us to retain some sense that heaven/the heavens (which, as this blog post notes, has always denoted what is “up there,” including both what we can see and cannot see) is the part of the cosmos especially privileged with God’s presence? Why can’t we still have a heavenly Holy of Holies in a modern cosmos?

Although Kline was very conservative, I nevertheless wonder if his “2 register cosmology” is compatible with what Middleton is saying. As far as I’m concerned, if Kline is correct about the days of God being “heavenly days,” then the problem of days completely goes away.

I think he should just accept that Genesis is composed of 2 separate sources, but regardless of one’s views on sources, his argument for a 2 registet cosmology is still very persuasive. PSCF March 1996 Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony by Meredith G. Kline



I believe the cosmic temple imagery is in order to reveal the presence of God throughout creation, all creation is his dwelling place, it’s a message of hope to the Judaic exiles in Babylon. This is similar to the reason why I believe God ‘names’ the regions of the universe, it shows that they are under his control.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.