Jacob's Ladder

"in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go" (Genesis 28:14-15)

"'they shall call His name Immanuel,' which translated means, 'God with us.'" (Matthew 1:23)

"The promise of an accompanying presence of God that would never fail, first given to Jacob, is now renewed and extended, by implication, to the nations that become Jacob's offspring through faith in the Messiah. This happens through a form of the divine presence that Jacob could never have anticipated: the presence of God in the midst of human life as the human Jesus, Jacob's own descendant, who thus brings blessing to the nations. Jesus himself is God-with-us." (Richard Bauckham, Who Is God? [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2020], 23)

"you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51)

"He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." (Genesis 28:12)

A Multipersonal God In Genesis

Than Christopoulos recently posted a good video about the Angel of the Lord in Genesis. And here's another video he recently did with Caleb Jackson about a healing of stomach paralysis with medical documentation.

Resurrection Implied By The Trajectory Of Scripture

"it is much more likely (particularly in a time of nationalistic fervour and a desire for independence [as in the late B.C. era]) that the seedbed for personal resurrection is to be found in Israel's traditional faith rather than in ideas and concepts imported from surrounding cultures. For instance, if the first major problem that unfolds in the Torah is death (as implied in Gen. 2, 3 and 5), one might reasonably infer that the solution will be its ultimate reversal. Even though not firmly grasped by many ancient Israelites, this is certainly implied by the trajectory of Scripture as a whole." (Paul Williamson, Death And The Afterlife [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2017], n. 68 on 82)

Enoch In Heaven In Genesis 5:24

Since it's common to question or deny belief in an afterlife in early Judaism, we should keep in mind that an afterlife and significantly related concepts, such as the existence of heaven, are often implied where they're not spelled out (e.g., passages forbidding attempts to contact the dead). An example too seldom discussed is Enoch in Genesis 5:24.

For confirmation that something other than death is being referred to, see the many references to other individuals dying in Genesis 5, in contrast to what's said about Enoch. And notice the emphasis on how Enoch "walked with God", which implies that he would therefore receive favorable treatment. The language of being "taken" is more naturally interpreted as referring to ongoing existence elsewhere rather than ceasing to exist, and ceasing to exist after a shorter lifespan than so many other figures of that era doesn't make sense as a form of favorable treatment. The later taking of Elijah to heaven without dying shows that such a concept was known in ancient Jewish thought. And as far as I know, later accounts of what happened to Enoch suggest that his going to heaven was the most widespread interpretation of the Genesis passage. The text isn't as explicit as we'd like it to be, but an interpretation involving Enoch's going to heaven makes the most sense.

The Akedah

Regarding God testing Abraham's faith by telling Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a burnt offering in Genesis 22:

I think there's dramatic irony in Gen 22. The events of the story turn out to be the opposite of what one would have expected at the climax of the narrative.

My understanding is human sacrifice to various gods occurred among many ancient Neareastern cultures. An ancient Neareasterner (like Abraham) might not unreasonably expect Yahweh to be like these other gods too.

Yet Gen 22 has a twist ending. The twist ending of the story is that Yahweh isn't like other gods.

Quite the contrary. Yahweh doesn't demand Abraham sacrifice Isaac. Rather Yahweh "provides" a ram caught in a thicket by its horns for Abraham to sacrifice. As such, Abraham learns Yahweh is the God who "provides", not a god who takes. Yahweh is the God who unilaterally blesses his followers, not a god who requires things in a quid pro quo fashion from his followers. Yahweh is the merciful God, not a god who must always exact his pound of flesh. Yahweh blessed Abraham because Abraham trusted Yahweh, not because Abraham literally killed and sacrificed his son Isaac in exchange for blessings like a pagan god might wish. These are the kinds of lessons Yahweh imparted to Abraham - and to us.

So this was a happy reversal of fortunes from Abraham and Isaac's perspective. They didn't have to do what they thought they had to do.

What's more, this happy reversal of fortunes in turn points to the One who reversed their fortunes - namely, Yahweh. Such that Abraham and Isaac, along with the audience, are led to ask: what kind of God is this, this Yahweh? Yahweh is not like heathen gods. Instead Yahweh is the God of promise, provision, blessing, grace.

Dividing Genesis

Genesis is one book, but if you needed to split Hebrew Genesis into two scrolls, you could do so at Genesis 25:11. Here’s why. https://t.co/xUUAFb2WyK

— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) May 30, 2020

The creation of Adam

1. I've discussed this before, but I'd like to explore a variation. If I stepped into a time machine and went back to Eden, just before God created Adam, what would I see? We can't say for sure since the narrative is sketchy, so there's more than one way to mentally pencil in the details, but here's one way.

2. I see a man standing in the garden. I'm not saying the figure is a man. I'm just referring to what he looks like. In reality, the "man" is God, who assumed angelic form to create Adam. In Scripture, some angels are seraphim/cherubim. But we wouldn't expect God to assume cherubic form. They are symbolic guardians of the divine throne room. 

Other angels are luminous beings. It's possible that God was luminous. 

At other times, angels appear to be indistinguishable from human males. Suppose that's the case. 

In that event, Adam was literally made in God's image. He was made in God's image when God assumed human form to create Adam. 

3. So let's say I see a man in the garden, although he's God in the form of a humanoid angel. Suppose he reaches down and scoops a lump of clay from the ground. He begins shaping the clay. At the same time, he multiplies the size of the lump. Like a sculptor, he creates a life-size clay figurine of a human male. He then brings it to life by breathing into its nostrils. The clay is transformed into a human body, and the human body is animated. 

4. I don't mean animated in the sense of ensoulment. I'm referring to biological life. The narrative is silent on the question of dualism. The primary biblical witness to dualism occurs in eschatological texts concerning the intermediate state.     

Is Genesis history?

According to Tim Challies, the documentary Is Genesis History? is available to watch for free for a limited time. The documentary includes interviews with scholars Todd Wood, Paul Nelson, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, and others. I haven't watched it, but I thought some people might be interested.

The Tempter as shapeshifter

1. One of the oddities of Gen 3 is how the Tempter is introduced with so little exposition or backstory, as if the original audience would be familiar with a character like the Tempter. The name of the Tempter is a pun or triple entendre, so it has a dual identity. There's the image it projects and then there's its true identity. This suggests the Tempter is an entity in the tradition of shapeshifters. Agents that alternate between identities. Agents that may appear to be animals but that's not their true identity or original identity. Conversely, agents that appear to be human, but they've undergone a transformation. 

2. The tradition of shapeshifters is ethnographically quite diverse. Two standard academic monographs are Montague Summers, The Werewolf in Lore and Legend (Dover 2003 reprint) and Sabine Baring-Gould, The Book of Werewolves (2002 Blackmask Online). There's also American Indian folklore about skinwalkers and totemic animal spirits among Plains Indians, desert southwestern tribes, as well as Algonquian tribes (e.g. Manitou). cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ae_Xw8IlW8

3. Shapeshifters are naturally impossible, but within the worldview of Christian supernaturalism and pagan witchcraft, they may be realistic. It's necessary to sift evidence for shapeshifters from different phenomena:

i) Orphaned feral children misidentified as werewolves

ii) Lycanthropy as a psychotic condition (e.g. Dan 4). 

iii) People who aspire to be animals (e.g. (Berserkers). They may aspire to be possessed by an animal spirit or actually be transformed into an animal. That, however, is a kind of playacting. 

iv) Distinguishing folkloric shapeshifters from literary and cinematic shapeshifters. 

4. The role of magic also requires sifting:

i) Witchcraft spawns lots of mythology and legend that have no basis in fact. Ingrown folklore that's passed on. 

ii) Defamatory accusations of witchcraft. 

iii) Conversely, cultivating a reputation for witchcraft can have propaganda value by making the individual an object to be feared and placated. 

iv) A distinction between having the ability to be shapeshift and the ability to hex others: S. Augustine declared, in his De Civitate Dei, that he knew an old woman who was said to turn men into asses by her enchantments. Sabine Baring-Gould, The Book of Werewolves (5).

5. It may not be coincidental that shapeshifters are often associated with the desert. That's the case in American Indian folklore, and it has biblical parallels. Consider the ambiguous references in Isa 13:21 & 34:14. And the further fact that the Devil tempted Jesus in the desert. 

6. Of even greater potential interest is whether Lev 16:8 and 17:7 allude to goat demons in the desert. Occultic shapeshifters.

This might resonant with to the original audience for Gen 3, because the Israelites were living in the desert at the time Genesis was written. So even though Gen 3 recounts an incident that happened millennia before, the idea of a malevolent shapeshifter may well be a recognizable entity in their experience. 

This also explains the fluid identity of the Tempter, not only in Gen 3 but Rev 12 and 20. An evil spirit (fallen angel) with an animal name and reptilian imagery or symbolism. 

The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil

1. I don't think word-studies provide the answer.

2. It's an interesting question who God's dialogue partner is in Gen 3:22. "Become like us". Perhaps it's the Spirit of God, who seems to be God's dialogue partner in Gen 1.

3. In my post I suggested that knowledge of good and evil refer to obedience or disobedience to God's command/prohibition:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/03/parsing-tree-of-knowledge.html

 Adam and Eve learn what evil is by simply doing what's forbidden. And it's a disappointing experience. There's no payoff. The only insight or enlightenment they gain is what it feels like to do what's forbidden. That's a very empty experience. They were hoping to get something out of it, but it's big letdown.

4. There has to be some kind of analogy between their experience and Gen 3:22. I'd say God already knows the consequences of obedience and disobedience, because he knows the future. He knows the aftermath of what Adam and Eve set in motion. 

5. A feature of human contentment or discontent is that we can be blissfully happy and contented so long as someone doesn't propose that there's something better we're missing out on. Simply planting that idea in the mind, that comparison with something hypothetically better, can foster discontent. The imagination does the rest. 

The mere suggestion that there's something better can foster the suspicion that we've been cheated. It isn't based on any actual tangible good they're aware of. It isn't based on any perceived good that's been withheld. Just the bare idea,

6. An example might be illicit teenage sex. The boy and girl are curious about what sex is like. They've been conditioned to believe there's nothing more enjoyable than sex, So they're in a big hurry to find out. They rush through it. As a result, they find sex is a big letdown. Natural goods can lose value if we approach them with false expectations. 

7. An example from classic literature would be Othello. Initially Othello and Desdemona are blissfully in love, but Iago seeks revenge. He knows that Desdemona is Otello's vulnerability. He plants in Othello's mind that Desdemona is having an affair with another man or simply in love with another man. Even though there's no evidence, the mere idea gnaws away at Othello. The groundless suspicion drives him insane jealousy.

The Tempter uses the tree of knowledge that way. Adam and Eve are happy until the Tempter suggests that God is holding back on them. They are getting second best. 

The mere idea is sufficient to make them dissatisfied with what they've got. They violate the prohibition to find out what they're missing. But all they discover is what it feels like to disobey. So now they have nothing to show for their transgression. They lost what they had without gaining anything in return, much less something better. 

Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1–3

https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PoythressVernInterpretingEdenAGuideToFaithfullyReadingAndUnderstandingGenesis1-3.pdf

The Plasticity and Flexibility of ANE Myths

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity-part-19/

Seamonsters

1. If you were a director, filming Gen 3, how would you visualize the Tempter? As Michael Heiser has noted, the name of the Tempter is a triple entendre: snake, diviner, shining one. 

2. One question is whether angels, or certain kinds of angels, are shapeshifters. The seraphim and cherubim seem to be shapeshifters. Indeed, the technical designation is Tetramorph. 

3. Another issue is whether there's any relationship between the Tempter and the river or tributaries of Eden. In Dan 7, the prophet has a dream or night vision of hybrid sea monsters rising from the ocean. And in Rev 13, John has a vision of a hybrid sea monster rising from the ocean.

Related examples include Leviathan (Isa 27:1 Ps 74:13-14).

4. In Rev 12, the Devil originally appeared to be a serpentine constellation. The background of the night sky is like an ocean. 

5. Perhaps, in Gen 3, the Tempter originally emerges from  the river like an anaconda or sea-monster, then assumes a more humanoid shape when engaging Eve in conversation. 

The curse might indicate a shift from an aquatic to a terrestrial zone, which would be quite a comedown. 

The predominate imagery is serpentine. The iconography of the medieval dragon seems to be anachronistic. However, ancient Jews were certainly familiar with the Nile crocodile, and the fire-breathing reptile in Job 41 resembles a Nile crocodile with some legendary enhancements or accessories. 

This list doesn't include extinct prehistorical snakes like Titanoboa and Gigantophis. 

Healing leaves

In Eden, the tree of life confers immortality (Gen 2:9; 3:22-24). The New Jerusalem picks up on the tree of life motif, but there it has a different purpose. In the New Jerusalem the leaves have medicinal properties (Rev 22:2). And that goes back to Ezekiel's new Edenic vision (Ezk 47:12).

The reason for the difference is presumably twofold:

i) In Revelation, eternal life is conferred by the atonement of Christ. 

ii) Eden is an unfallen world, so the tree's function is to extend nature. By contrast, the New Jerusalem is a world fallen and redeemed, so the tree's function is restorative. Not to prolong the status quo permanently, but to reverse it and cure it. 

Snake river

This may be a suggestion without merit, but I'll float it for consideration. Streams and rivers have a serpentine appearance. Of course, the resemblance isn't close, but to human imagination there's a suggestive association. Rivers as serpentine metaphors. 

A river (or four tributaries) is a prominent feature in the Garden of Eden. It's essential to the life of the garden. Irrigates the orchard, provides drinking water for the humans and animals.

Could it be that one reason for the serpentine symbolism of the  Tempter that it trades on the visual and subliminal association between snakes and rivers? Just as the river is a source of life, the Tempter is a counterfeit life-giving savior? 

Parsing the tree of knowledge

9 The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:9,17).

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths (Gen 3:1-7).

1. This is rather cryptic. Commentators puzzle over it due to lack of definition or explication. Unlike psychological novels, biblical narrators often refrain from telling the reader what characters are thinking, so the reader is like a bystander who sees and overhears the action. It remains on the surface.

2. What is meant by the knowledge of good and evil? What was lacking in the experience of Adam and Eve prior to eating from the tree? In what sense were their eyes opened? Did the Tempter lie to them?

3. Some commentators focus on word-studies, but you can't get much milage out of that to answer these questions. Some commentators speculate that Adam and Eve were morally immature, in a state of diminished responsibility.

4. It's possible that the tree of knowledge doesn't confer the knowledge of good and evil. Rather, they discover or experience what evil means by doing what's forbidden. It's not so much about the nature of the tree, but the nature of their defiant action. When they violate the prohibition, they discover or experience the nature of evil through their wrongdoing. 

They are now in a different mental and moral state than before they transgressed the prohibition. They can't turn back the clock to their prior inexperience. 

5. So their eyes are opened, not in the sense that the tree in itself confers knowledge of good and evil, but because they now know what it feels like to do something forbidden. That's a change. The contrast between respecting the prohibition and defying the prohibition. 

6. In addition, they find out what it's like to be deceived. In a sense, the Tempter didn't lie to them, but he tricked them. He told a half-truth. What happened was a letdown. Not what they were expecting or hoping for. In a sense he held up his end of the bargain, but they were too naive to appreciate what they are in for. They gain insight through hindsight rather than foresight, at which point it's too late to recross the line. 

7. In itself, their action changes next to nothing. They now know what it feels like to do something forbidden. That's all. But that's disappointing. That's very thin. Like running a red light at a deserted intersection.

8. However, violating the prohibition is punishable. So their action fosters a sense of dread. Knowledge of good and evil instills foreboding about what awaits them. And, indeed, retribution is swift, as they are banished from the garden. Shut off from access to the tree of life. From hereon out they must struggle with inhospitable conditions, aging, and death. 

Craig on random mutations

Here's William Lane Craig's most recent Q&A "#-671 Do 'Random' Mutations Occur by 'Chance'?".

As explained, too many people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate think that “random,” when used by evolutionary biologists to characterize mutations, means purposeless or without direction or by chance. But that’s not at all what they mean. Rather they mean that the mutations occur regardless of their benefit to the organism in which they occur. Such an understanding of “random” is not at all contrary to God’s having a purpose for the mutations that occur or even Himself causing the mutations to occur.

1. If we want a strict biology textbook definition, sure, mutations are "random" in the sense that the mutation that occurs is unpredictable in relation to what is useful to the organism. The mutation that occurs is unrelated to the usefulness of the mutation to the organism.

2. However, that's not always what we're talking about when we talk about random mutations. It depends on the context. Surely (surely!) Craig knows when people debate creation/evolution/ID, they're not always or solely talking about the strict biology textbook definition of random mutations. Rather creation/evolution/ID debates likewise involve questions over more fundamental issues. Such as the existence of God as well as the nature and scope of God's intervention in nature. So the use of both kinds of definitions for random mutations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

3. To be more specific, in the context of naturalistic evolution (e.g. Dawkins, Coyne), it's legitimate to argue that these mutations are ultimately purposeless or unguided. Given naturalistic evolution, what is the ultimate source of these "random" mutations?

We come to see that evolutionary theory does not assert that the mutations which lie at the root of evolutionary development and, hence, evolution itself occur purposelessly or by chance, as popularizers and even careless scientists often claim. By properly understanding the meaning of “random” in evolutionary theory, we come to see that evolution is wholly compatible with God’s providentially directing the evolutionary process.

However, this doesn't depend on evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) in and of itself. Rather, as I've just said, it depends on whether we're talking about (say) theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. The textbook definition of random mutations is consistent with either theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

I’m implying that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism because it does not assert that the mutations which advance evolutionary change occur by chance or without purpose...What I’m implying is that God, while quite able to create fully functional biological organisms de novo, may have instead chosen to create them indirectly by deliberately causing the mutations that drove evolutionary advance.

1. Now, it could be Craig is simply answering this question or objection without offering his personal beliefs about the matter. Perhaps that's the case.

2. However, maybe I'm mistaken, but my impression is Craig has been becoming more sympathetic to theistic evolution as well as more skeptical about the historical Adam and Eve over the years. Again, that's not to suggest Craig currently accepts theistic evolution or denies the historical Adam and Eve. But it seems to me he is at least intellectually sympathetic to both positions, even if that's not his personal conviction.

Take the historical Adam and Eve. It seems to me Craig might be sympathetic in believing either there may not have been a historical Adam and Eve (e.g. Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve lived thousands of years apart from one another), or if there was, then they were "chosen" by God out of a pool of other hominids and "made into" the historical Adam and Eve.

3. If it's true Craig is becoming more sympathetic to accepting theistic evolution and/or denying the historical Adam and Eve, then I presume his main influence is the Christian physician-scientist Joshua Swamidass at Peaceful Science. I think Swamidass is in essence a theistic evolutionist, but he often seems circumspect about saying so explicitly. The latest two Reasonable Faith podcasts involve Swamidass (here, here).

Were humans originally vegetarian?

The prooftext of original human vegetarianism is Gen 1:29. And it's possible that the traditional interpretation is correct. However:

i) The language is permissive rather than contrastive. It doesn't say they were granted vegetation as opposed to meat. Although the verse allowed for that distinction, it's not a logical implication of the verse. The verse isn't worded in terms of two antithetical sources of food, where one is verboten. 

ii) Explicitly stating that vegetation is generally permissible to eat might be theologically relevant insofar as it foreshadows the significance of two particular trees in Gen 2, one of which is forbidden. 

iii) Gen 1:24-26 includes a category of livestock. Normally, certain kinds of livestock are consumed. Indeed, that's one reason to domesticate them. It's easier than hunting. 

But even if we don't press that issue, some livestock are also used as a food supplement for milk and eggs. But even on that "vegetarian" interpretation, the intended scope of Gen 1:29 can't be confined to an exclusively plant-based diet (fruits, nuts, roots). Rather, it presumptively includes supplementary food provided by farm animals, even if, for the sake of argument, we don't insist that they were butchered for meat. But that means the licit original diet of man was already wider than Gen 1:29. 

The only alternative is to suppose the livestock were used as beasts of burden, rather than a food source of any kind. But that's highly artificial, and unlikely that the original audience would draw that dichotomy. 

iv) In addition, the tree of life wasn't give for food, but it was permissible to eat. So a food stuff isn't the only function of plants, in the creation account. 

v) Humans often prefer herbivores to carnivores for meat. (That depends in part on what's available for consumption.) So there's an indirect link between a meat diet for humans and a vegetarian diet for livestock and game animals. A vegetarian diet is foundational to a meat diet. 

vi) Another way of putting this is that Gen 1:29 is permissive rather than prohibitive. Although the wording is consistent with a ban on meat-eating, that's not entailed by the wording.

Moreover, given repeated references to livestock in the same account, it's implausible that a human diet consisting only of vegetation was originally allowed. The narrator couldn't reasonably expect the original audience to have such a restrictive view of what livestock is for. 

Even if, for the sake of argument, we think Gen 1:29 excludes the consumption of livestock, how could it also be understood to exclude the consumption of milk and eggs from livestock? 

What's the point of livestock? Other than a source of food, the only other function is beasts of burden, but God created Eden with an orchard, It already had fruit trees. So there was no pressing need farm the land with oxen. 

Of course, humans domesticated wolves for guarding and hunting, but that's not terribly consonant with the vegetarian interpretation. 

Mind you, the reference to livestock might seem anachronistic in a creation account. Did God directly create livestock? Are they not, by definition, domesticated wild animals?

So the reference might be proleptic. But even so, livestock are represented as part of the original goodness of creation, and not a natural evil due to the fall. 

Vegetarians or carnivores?

Young earth creationists (YECs) typically argue there was no animal death either before the Fall or before the Flood. Moreover YECs typically argue animals were vegetarians either before the Fall or before the Flood, but became carnivorous either in the postlapsarian or postdiluvian period. The basis for their arguments is exegetical.

By contrast, OT scholar Iain Provan offers a different exegetical argument about animal death and animal feeding behavior in Seriously Dangerous Religion (pp 226-234).

Earth and sea in Gen 1

Since the sky is usually thought by pre-scientific peoples to be a solid hemisphere literally touching the earth (or sea) at the horizon, the earth must necessarily be thought of as flat. It is impossible to conceive of the sky as a hemisphere touching the earth at the horizon, and yet conceive of the earth as a globe. If the earth were a globe but the sky just a hemisphere touching the earth, half of the earth would have no sky. The shape of the earth is accordingly explicitly or implicitly described by all pre-scientific peoples as being flat, and usually circular--a single disc-shaped continent. Paul H. Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of 'Earth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10." WTJ 59 (1997), 232.

Even if, for argument's sake, we bracket the inspiration of Scripture, there are problems with Seely's generalizations:

i) He fails to distinguish between landlocked countries and coastal countries with maritime activities. 

ii) Apropos (i), the horizon is relative to the position of the viewer. It's not a fixed point but extends forward or backward as the viewer moves towards it. 

iii) Ancient mariners were aware of the North and South poles. That's hard to square with belief in a single disc-shaped contingent or celestial solid dome resting on the horizon. Empiriccal observation belies Seely's rigid schema. 

iv) Presumably, Seely believes the Pentateuch was compiled/redacted around the time of the Babylonian captivity. That raises the question of when Arctica and Antarctica were discovered and knowledge of their existence was popularized (e.g. Virgil, Ovid, Diogenes Laërtius). 

Bk I:32-51 The earth and sea. The five zones.

When whichever god it was had ordered and divided the mass, and collected it into separate parts, he first gathered the earth into a great ball so that it was uniform on all sides. Then he ordered the seas to spread and rise in waves in the flowing winds and pour around the coasts of the encircled land. He added springs and standing pools and lakes, and contained in shelving banks the widely separated rivers, some of which are swallowed by the earth itself, others of which reach the sea and entering the expanse of open waters beat against coastlines instead of riverbanks. He ordered the plains to extend, the valleys to subside, leaves to hide the trees, stony mountains to rise: and just as the heavens are divided into two zones to the north and two to the south, with a fifth and hotter between them, so the god carefully marked out the enclosed matter with the same number, and described as many regions on the earth. The equatorial zone is too hot to be habitable; the two poles are covered by deep snow; and he placed two regions between and gave them a temperate climate mixing heat and cold. 

https://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/trans/Metamorph.htm#488381090

To this end the golden Sun rules his circuit, portioned out in fixed divisions, through the world’s twelve constellations. Five zones comprise the heavens; whereof one is ever glowing with the flashing sun, ever scorched by his flames. Round this, at the world’s ends, two stretch darling to right and left, set fast in ice and black storms. Between these and the idle zone, two by grace of the gods have been vouchsafed to feeble mortals; and a path is cut between the two, wherein the slanting array of the Signs may turn. As our globe rises steep to Scythia and the Riphaean crags, so its slopes downward to Libya’s southland. One pole is ever high above us, while the other, beneath our feet, is seen of black Styx and shades infernal. 

https://www.theoi.com/Text/VirgilGeorgics1.html

156  And there are five terrestrial zones: first, the northern zone which is beyond the arctic circle, uninhabitable because of the cold; second, a temperate zone; a third, uninhabitable because of great heats, called the torrid zone; fourth, a counter-temperate zone; fifth, the southern zone, uninhabitable because of its cold.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diogenes_Laertius/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/7/Zeno*.html