How people of Bible times understood cosmology

Many Bible scholars believe that what science there is in the Bible was simply the way people of that time understood things. This does not mean that the scripture is in error. It simply reports what people believed.

One example of this is the matter of the firmament, or expanse, or, more broadly, cosmology. I am using God Against the Gods: Storytelling, Imagination and Apologetics in the Bible, by Brian Godawa, as a guide to some scripture on this topic, in this discussion.

Consider this passage: Philippians 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Scripture from the World English Bible, in this color.). This important exaltation of Christ seems to take for granted that there's a three-fold universe. In heaven (above the firmament), on earth, and under the earth. Furthermore, though this passage doesn't say so, the earth, and perhaps the firmament and the sky, were flat, and circular.

As to the previous sentence, see Daniel 4:10 These were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and behold, a tree in the middle of the earth; and its height was great. 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its sight to the end of all the earth. The idea of a globular earth probably hadn't occurred to anyone alive at the time of Daniel. He saw the earth as a flat circle, where a tall tree would be visible all over the earth.

In previous posts, I have argued that there is no such thing as a firmament. The people of the times thought there was, and God let them describe the way things were, according to their belief. God doesn't correct us when we say that the sun rises and sets, even though it doesn't.

Here are three examples of the concept of the ends of the earth:

Isaiah. 41:9a You whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners…

Psalm 65:5b You who are the hope of all the ends of the earth, of those who are far away on the sea.

Zechariah 9:10b and he will speak peace to the nations:  and his dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

Searching for that phrase turned up 27 additional uses of "ends of the earth." It seems clear that people in Bible times didn't think of the earth as a globe!

The ancient Hebrews believed that the earth was in a fixed position, supported by pillars:

1 Samuel 2:8 For the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s. He has set the world on them. 

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all its inhabitants quake. I firmly hold its pillars. 

Psalm 96:10 Say among the nations, “Yahweh reigns.” The world is also established. It can’t be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity.

Psa. 104:5 He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever.

Job 9:5 He removes the mountains, and they don’t know it, when he overturns them in his anger. 6 He shakes the earth out of its place. Its pillars tremble. 7 He commands the sun and it doesn’t rise,     and seals up the stars.

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing. 10 He has described a boundary on the surface of the waters, and to the confines of light and darkness. 11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his rebuke. 12 He stirs up the sea with his power, and by his understanding he strikes through Rahab.

Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line on it? 6 What were its foundations fastened on? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all its inhabitants quake. I firmly hold its pillars. 

Zech. 12:1a A revelation: Yahweh’s word concerning Israel. Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth ...

For more on ancient Hebrew cosmology, see this Wikipedia article.

 

On September 27, I added a link to the book by Godawa, and wrote a little about how I had used it.

 

Thanks for reading!

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative, part 2

In recent post on this blog, I argued that Genesis is not straightforward historical narrative. Many Christ-loving Bible scholars had already said this, for many reasons. My principal reason was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot be straightforward historical narrative, because there are discrepancies between these two chapters. See graphic:

There is another important reason for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 are straightforward historical narrative. That reason is that the firmament, or expanse, mentioned in Genesis 1, does not exist. The Hebrews of Bible times believed that there was a solid, transparent dome above the earth, which held up the heavenly bodies, as well as water, in its various forms. They thought wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the beliefs of the writers/readers/listeners. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. Genesis does not say that you have to believe in a firmament to please God. There is no reference to an expanse or firmament in the commonly  used creeds of the church. The churches of today do not expect belief in a firmament/expanse as a requirement of members.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written, not to teach astronomy, but to emphasize the existence of an all-powerful Creator, who is deeply concerned about the fate of humans.

Thanks for reading.

The Firmament (or Expanse)

This post is one in a series on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. 

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above. 1:23 Under the expanse were their wings straight, the one toward the other: each one had two which covered on this side, and every one had two which covered on that side, their bodies. (All scripture from World English Bible, public domain, unless noted otherwise. Long quotes are in this color.)

The word translated as "expanse" is as follows, according to Strong's Concordance (See Wikipedia article on that resource) as shown in the Blueletter Bible:

Note that Strong gives two meanings for the Hebrew word rāqîa. The first is a "base, support," and the second is "regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it."

rāqîa is found in a number of passages in the Old Testament. It is translated as "firmament," "expanse," "surface," "platform" or "vault" in various translations, in Genesis 1:6; 1:6; 1:7; 1:8; 1:14; 1:14; 1:15; 1:17; 1:20, Job 37:18, Psalms 19:2; 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22; (3 times) 1:23; 1:25; 1:26 Daniel 12:3. "Expanse" is the most common, and it is often rendered "likeness of an expanse."

The graphic below is from the same source as the first one, and shows the concordance of Gesenius.

These two old authorities (Strong and Gesenius) believed that the firmament, or expanse, was a physical structure, over the earth, and that the stars were fixed in that expanse, and that that expanse supported reservoirs of water, just as the ancient Jews believed.

Here are some more Biblical uses of the word, rāqîa:

Genesis 1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.” The King James Version, and some others, use "firmament," rather than "expanse." "Expanse" is used more often than "firmament." One version uses "arch." The NIV uses "vault." (See here for over a dozen translations of Genesis 1:6.)

Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror? [This verse supports the idea of a solid dome.]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.

Psalm 150:1 Praise Yah! Praise God in his sanctuary! Praise him in his heavens for his acts of power!

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like an awesome crystal to look at, stretched out over their heads above. 23 Under the expanse, their wings were straight, one toward the other. Each one had two which covered on this side, and each one had two which covered their bodies on that side. 24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of an army. When they stood, they let down their wings.25 There was a voice above the expanse that was over their heads. When they stood, they let down their wings. 26 Above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone. On the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man on it above.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise will shine as the brightness of the expanse. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine as the stars forever and ever.

There are also Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. ["windows opened" suggests a belief in a solid dome.]

and Job 22:12 “Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are! 13 You say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, so that he doesn’t see. He walks on the vault of the sky.’ [Walking on a vault suggests that the vault is solid.]

Since I was going to write on the firmament/expanse/vault/arch, I thought I should see what AiG, the most important young-earth creationism organization, had to say about it. Here's part of that:

Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. (Guy Vaterlaus, "Underneath a Solid Sky," Answers in Genesis, August 8, 2023. Also published earlier on March 9, 2009.)

And, from the same post: "The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome." Vaterlaus strongly implies that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a solid dome, holding up the heavenly bodies.

"Critics of the Bible" sounds like an important idea. But, what it really means, to Answers in Genesis, is "critics of the Answers in Genesis interpretation of the Bible." See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, which includes the following:

• The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. ...
• The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and catastrophic in its effects. ...
• Scripture teaches a recent origin of man and the whole creation, with history spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

In spite of the scriptural and historical evidence, AiG maintains that people of Bible times didn't believe in some sort of dome over the earth, holding up the clouds and heavenly bodies. Here's an article on the subject, from AiG. The title says it: ""Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?" The answer, is "no."

Another article on the subject, from AiG, says The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.

AiG may be correct about some Bible critics and what they say about the Bible. But I doubt that many such base their criticism primarily on the idea of a solid dome above the earth. AiG is not correct in saying that statements in the Bible about scientific subjects, like cosmology, have to match our current knowledge, or, if they don't, the Bible is deeply discredited. I have posted here about ancient understanding of the function of the liver, and here, about the size of mustard seeds, and about how the sun's position relative to the earth is described. In these cases, the Bible reports something that was said, or believed, and was wrong scientifically. But that doesn't make the Bible wrong, anymore than reporting on some wacky idea, without arguing for its truth, would discredit CNN's reporting.

The Bible does not teach, as a doctrine to be defended, that there was a solid dome above the earth. But it does describe the situation as the ancient Jews believed it -- they thought there was such a firmament. If anything, that makes the Bible more believable.

Thank you for reading.

 

Answers in Genesis on the vapor-canopy hypothesis (aka the firmament)

The King James version uses the term "firmament" in Genesis 1. Other versions of the Bible use other terms, such as canopy or expanse.

It doesn't matter much. Many Young-Earth Creationists (YEC), especially Answers in Genesis (AiG), the most prominent YEC organization, have stopped pushing the existence of a firmament. Here are some links to AiG articles:

"Running out of Puff."

"What is the State of the Water Vapor Canopy Model?"

"The Collapse of the Canopy Model"

There may well be more such.

All of these articles were published in the AiG official web site, and deny the necessity of a vapor canopy. Rejection of the firmament/vapor canopy is for several reasons, such as one would make stars very difficult to see (and apparently people in Bible times were familiar with the appearance of the stars.) Another reason is that a firmament would increase global warming, probably making life impossible.

I appreciate the abandonment of the vapor-canopy model by AiG. (Not all Christians, probably even not all Christians trained in science, have rejected it, unfortunately.)

More on the firmament

 Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky,
 which is strong as a cast metal mirror? (World English Bible, public domain)

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong,
and as a molten looking glass? (King James)

II. That he had no share at all in the first making of the world (v. 18): "Hast thou with him spread out the sky? Thou canst not pretend to have stretched it out without him, no, nor to have stretched it out in conjunction with him; for he was far from needing any help either in contriving or in working." The creation of the vast expanse of the visible heavens (Gen. 1:6-8), which we see in being to this day, is a glorious instance of the divine power, considering,
1. That, though it is fluid, yet it is firm. It is strong, and has its name from its stability. It still is what it was, and suffers no decay, nor shall the ordinances of heaven be altered till the lease expires with time.
2. That, though it is large, it is bright and most curiously fine: It is a molten looking-glass, smooth and polished, and without the least flaw or crack. In this, as in a looking-glass, we may behold the glory of God and the wisdom of his handy work, Ps. 19:1. When we look up to heaven above we should remember it is a mirror or looking-glass, not to show us our own faces, but to be a faint representation of the purity, dignity, and brightness of the upper world and its glorious inhabitants.
- Matthew Henry's commentary, 1708-10, on Job. (Newton's Principia was published in 1687. I don't know if Henry was familiar with its ideas of the structure of the solar system, but he doesn't seem to have used them, if he did. We don't, always, either. We still speak as if the sun rose and set, when it really doesn't.)

A web site defending inerrancy attempts, with some success, to eliminate some of the difficulties suggested above. However, it seems to me that the best way to deal with passages like that above is to suppose that God, who knows how things really work, simply allowed the views of people who knew (or know) only partly to be represented in the Bible. For example, take this excerpt:

Job 38:31 “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion? 32 Can you lead the constellations out in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with her cubs? 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you establish its dominion over the earth? (World English Bible)

We now know that the constellations, such as the ones mentioned above, are composed of stars (or galaxies that look like stars to the naked eye) that are far apart, and at varying distances from us. Orion, for example, has parts that are about 26 light years away, and other parts that are several thousand light years away. God knew all of that, and more, but Job didn't. God used the ideas of the time, incorrect as they were, to teach Job, without correcting Job's view of astronomy. Job wasn't meant as an astronomy text. No doubt we have some seriously incorrect views of nature, too.

Thanks for reading!

The Firmament of the Hebrews

The Blue Letter Bible says the following about the Hebrew word firmament, which occurs first in Genesis 1:6, and again in Genesis 1:14: (quotation in this color)

The KJV translates Strong's H7549 in the following manner: firmament (17x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

    extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

        expanse (flat as base, support)

        firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

            considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

            Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

            רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky

The same Hebrew word occurs several times in Genesis 1, and also in Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 150:1. It is repeated 4 times in Ezekiel 1, and also in Ezekiel 10:1 and Daniel 12:3.

Based on the Blue Letter Bible excerpt, the ancient Hebrews believed that there was a firmament, a structure of some kind, that held up the waters in the sky. Here are some more statements of that belief, from the Wikipedia:

In biblical cosmology, the firmament is the vast solid dome created by God on the second day to divide the primal sea (called tehom) into upper and lower portions so that the dry land could appear.

The Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it.[9] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

No structure of this kind exists, as far as we know, and the earth is not the center of the universe or the solar system. That doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It was just written from the world view of the people who wrote it, and the culture of those who read it. They had a mistaken view of the solar system. We still say that the sun rises and sets, but it doesn't really. The earth rotates. But we aren't wrong if we say it does, and our literature and common discourse use "sunrise" and "sunset." We write and speak from our world view. So did the authors and original recipients of the Bible.

Thanks for reading.

Note added, December 23, 2021:

Joel Edmund Anderson, who firmly believes that Genesis 1-11 was not meant to be taken literally, says that he is not convinced that the ancient Hebrews believed in an actual physical firmament.

 

Note added, June 17, 2022:

This post links to three different articles on the Answers in Genesis web site, showing that Answers in Genesis, the most prominent Young-Earth Creation organization, doesn't believe in a firmament, either.

The moon can be an absentee ruler: Problems with reading Genesis 1 and 2 as history.

Some Christians believe that Genesis 1 was meant to be read as history, and sets forth events in sequence. (See my previous post for further discussion of interpreting Genesis 1.) 

There are some problems with reading Genesis 1 as history, setting forth events in sequence. Here are some of them:

1) Light appears on the first day, but the sun and moon (which are not named, probably as a warning against worshiping them) are not mentioned until the fourth day.

2) The sun is described as ruling the day, and the moon as ruling the night. Surely the ancient Hebrews (and God!) knew full well that the moon appears during the day on most days, for periods up to almost the entire length of that day, and is not always present during the night. How can the moon rule the night on nights when it doesn't appear?

The above photo, taken in daylight, shows that the moon was clearly visible, and the sun was clearly shining. That means that, on the other side of the earth, neither the moon nor the sun was visible in the sky, at that time. Photo from Laura Suarez (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu).

3) Genesis 1 describes a firmament (or expanse) as being created on the second day. The problem with that is that there is no firmament. Ancient peoples believed that there was one, and supposed that various celestial objects, and clouds, were held up by this structure. There is no firmament. The moon, the sun, the stars, galaxies, planets, comets and asteroids are not held up by any sort of glass sphere, or invisible framework (unless you count gravity as such). They are at distances that vary by orders of magnitude -- the moon is relatively close to us, the Magellanic Clouds much further away, so that there is no way that both of these could be held up by one structure surrounding the earth. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

How do I explain these problems? Is the Bible wrong?

I would argue that the Bible is not wrong. It was not meant to be a textbook of astronomy, or geology, or biology. It was meant to tell us about God, the single wonderful, wise creator, and His sovereignty over the creation. God used the language and ideas of the culture of the time. People of that day believed that there was a firmament, so God allowed the description of the creation to include this. Today, we say "sunset" and "sunrise," even though the sun doesn't really rise, or set -- the earth's rotation makes it seem that it rises and sets. If, for example, a news reporter or a novelist says that an event happened at sunrise, we don't accuse her of ignorance or deception.* These ideas are part of our culture, and communicate within that culture, whereas saying "the earth rotated so that the sun appeared on the horizon in Central Africa," is unnecessarily cumbersome and confusing. The idea of a firmament, in Bible times, communicated with others.

Added Dec 13, 2021: For more on the firmament and the Hebrews, see here.

Thank you for reading!

*There are other examples of this sort of thing, such as acting as if or communicating that gravity is an attractive force, because it's ingrained in our culture. If I understand Einstein, gravity is because of space being warped, so that two objects travel toward each other in space-time, and it isn't really an attractive force. The more up-to-date Einsteinian explanation of gravity was used frequently in Star Trek. ("warp speed") But we write and talk about falling downstairs, for example.

Another example of how culture makes communication unscientific is the use of heart for the seat of the emotions.

It is likely that some current ideas about how things work, from the submicroscopic to the galactic, will seem foolish to people in the future centuries. (If there are to be future centuries.)

Is Genesis 1-11 history, or myth? Comparing the sequence of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

First, what is a myth? The Project Gutenberg eText of Webster's 1913 dictionary says this:

1. A story of great but unknown age which originally embodied a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient legend of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin; a popular fable which is, or has been, received as historical.

2. A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.

And what is history? The Project Gutenberg eText of Webster's 1913 dictionary says this:

1. A learning or knowing by inquiry; the knowledge of facts and events, so obtained; hence, a formal statement of such information; a narrative; a description; a written record; as, the history of a patient's case; the history of a legislative bill.

2. A systematic, written account of events, particularly of those affecting a nation, institution, science, or art, and usually connected with a philosophical explanation of their causes; a true story, as distinguished from a romance; -- distinguished also from annals, which relate simply the facts and events of each year, in strict chronological order; from biography, which is the record of an individual's life; and from memoir, which is history composed from personal experience, observation, and memory.

Some Bible scholars claim that Genesis 1-11 is history. If I understand them, they mean that this text relates real events which happened in sequence as they are read in that text. Other Bible scholars claim that the same passage is myth. If I understand them, these scholars mean that this text is true, in the sense that we are to learn from it, and that it tells us about God, but that it does not necessarily portray real events, nor events in the sequence in which they actually happened.

One author who thinks Genesis 1-11 is myth is Joel Edmund Anderson. Here's an excerpt from one of his blog posts:

Saying Genesis 1-11 is myth doesn’t denigrate it. “Myth” doesn’t mean “untruth.” It is a specific genre of ancient writing that was used to describe a culture’s worldview regarding what that culture believed about (a) the gods/God, (b) the nature of human beings, and (c) the nature of the created order. It wasn’t trying to convey historical facts. It was trying to articulate that “worldview lens” through which that culture could interpret their world.

Anderson has written many other blog posts on these topics. So have others. (Here's another of Anderson's posts, pertinent to the topic of the post you are reading.)

What should we learn from Genesis 1-2? I am not God, so cannot be certain of what He wanted us to grasp, but the things that we were meant to learn probably included, first and foremost, that there is only one real God, powerful and wise enough to make the world as it is. Very possibly, mentioning the sun and the moon as appearing on the fourth day, rather than the first day, and without specifically naming them, shows us, and the ancient Hebrews, that we shouldn't worship the sun and the moon. We are also probably meant to learn that God is responsible for beauty, diversity and order in the world, and that humans have special responsibilities -- we are, in some senses, god-like.

Let's now look at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:

(This graphic gets tangled up with other parts of the blog, on some platforms. The graphic is still there, as a separate file. Feel free to use the graphic, with no attribution needed.)

There are significant differences in the sequence of events in Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2. Claims that these two chapters both set forth, in sequence, the events of the creation, are not supported by a plain reading of Genesis 1 and 2. There are various ways of explaining the differences between the Genesis 1 sequence, and the Genesis 2 sequence, and perhaps some of them are valid, but the idea that there is a plain reading of these two chapters, setting forth events in sequence, is not supported.

 

This post shows that Answer in Genesis, the most prominent Young-Earth Creationist organization, doesn't believe that there is, or was, a firmament. I guess that that means that the verse about the creation and existence of that firmament can't be history, as history is defined above. (Paragraph added June 17, 2022.)

Thanks for reading!

 

"calculated the dust of the earth in a measuring basket..." - God and nature in Isaiah 40

 "calculated the dust of the earth in a measuring basket..." - Isaiah 12:2b. (Scripture from the World English Bible, public domain.)

Isaiah 40 is probably best known for verses 30-31:

30 Even the youths faint and get weary,

    and the young men utterly fall;

31 but those who wait for Yahweh will renew their strength.

    They will mount up with wings like eagles.

    They will run, and not be weary.

    They will walk, and not faint.

This passage is partly, or completely, poetic -- it uses figurative language. We don't expect to fly like birds, even if we do wait for Yahweh.

There's more non-literal language in this chapter. Consider the verse which is the source of the title of this post:

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
    and marked off the sky with his span,
    and calculated the dust of the earth in a measuring basket,
    and weighed the mountains in scales,
    and the hills in a balance?

Here is more poetic wording:

11 He will feed his flock like a shepherd.
    He will gather the lambs in his arm,
    and carry them in his bosom.
    He will gently lead those who have their young.

and

22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
    who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,  

23 who brings princes to nothing,
    who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.

23 They are planted scarcely.
    They are sown scarcely.
    Their stock has scarcely taken root in the ground.
    He merely blows on them, and they wither,
    and the whirlwind takes them away as stubble.

and 

26 Lift up your eyes on high,
    and see who has created these,
    who brings out their army by number.
    He calls them all by name.
    by the greatness of his might,
    and because he is strong in power,
    not one is lacking. 

All of these not-literal passages refer to nature. Nature was, and should be, important to believers. In this one chapter, we have more than one section of nature-related material:

putting forth non-human creatures as a goal to aspire to, and/or as divinely designed;

an admonition that God understands the natural world, and we are just not capable of that;

care for animals as an illustration of God's care for His people;

God's sovereignty, even over the heavenly bodies;

God as creator.

Nature is not the main theme of Isaiah. Here's a quotation from the Wikipedia article on the book of Isaiah: 

The book can be read as an extended meditation on the destiny of Jerusalem into and after the Exile. ... Isaiah speaks out against corrupt leaders and for the disadvantaged, and roots righteousness in God's holiness rather than in Israel's covenant.

But, although it's not part of Isaiah's main message, nature has always been important to God. Here, the emphasis is not on caring for nature, or on nature's beauty and diversity, but on God's greatness, and His sovereignty over nature. The ancient Hebrews could probably distinguish a few thousand stars (more than all too many of us can see with the naked eye, looking directly at the sky) in the heavens that they saw. (They believed that the stars were held by a firmament. We now believe that there isn't any such thing, but God is just as much in charge of spatial objects as if there was. See also this post.) They could not have imagined stars of various colors, sizes, and age, or double stars, or asteroids, or billions of galaxies, and the other entities that we can see today. But God could imagine them, and, as Isaiah says, he brings them out by number, and knows the names of each of them. 

God also understands geology better than the best scientists of our, or any future time. He calculates the very dust -- not a single grain of silt, mud or soil is unseen by God, or not understood by Him.

Thanks for reading!