Cal wrote:
Simply false. You and I have discussed this at great length a number of times,and it sounds like you want to repeat the conversation yet again.....
Papias, if I recall, I answered all your objections and thought you had even acknowledge this. I'll remind of my answers below, which I don't believe you ever responded to. You're free to respond to them now.
you said: I gave a whole bunch of examples showing that both are clear in a literal reading, then you picked out one, in Job, objecting because God responds in a way that suggests part of the statement is wrong, and then I pointed out that God himself confirmed the flatness of the earth by referring to clay stamped under a seal in that same section. (not to mention not sticking the traditional interpretation).
I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here. Please clarify. Nowhere does Job or God endorse the idea of
shammiym being a solid structure. Perhaps you're referring to one of Elihu's statements, but even he didn't use the term
shammayim which God named the firmament. But please clarify this, so we can discuss further.
you say: Those verses I gave are:
Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.
Earth in the Bible, simple means land. "And God called the dry land, earth." (Gen. 1:10). Land can be flat and does have edges. We call them coastlines. Why is this a problem? Also, the passages you cite don't use the word "flat," as stamped clay would not itself be flat. The whole point is that it has markings based on debossing, just as the earth (land) has markings—hills, valleys, mountains, etc.
Now I don't believe Isaiah is speaking of a disk, but rather a sphere. That said, I disagree with most on this and believe Isaiah is speaking of the sphere of our atmosphere where God sits and looks down on the earth, i.e. the land (Most other creationists believe this sphere is our planet.). Obviously, this is metaphorical, as God doesn't actually sit on the sphere above the land. But I believe these passage are literal. They speak of the literal land and literal sphere.
you said: Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5, Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
Again, earth, in the Bible means land. What you're doing is imposing the modern meaning of planet earth into these passages, instead of using the literal guidelines God gave you. But "land" does literally sit on foundations. We might call it earth's mantle and core. And it is for the most part immovable, save continental drift and uncommon events of that nature.
It is also literally true that the sun moves around the land, if the land is your point of reference. Even modern day astrophysicists use terms like sunset and sunrise. This doesn't mean they are denying orbital relationships, but rather they are using the land as a point of reference. Descriptions of all movement require this.
How fast are you moving on the freeway? 60mph? Wrong! According to your rigid thinking you're moving 67,000 mph on the freeway as the road itself is moving that fast around the sun. But in reference to the road, you're moving 60 mph—literally.
The Bible makes no mention of orbital relationships and it's doubtful the authors even knew what those were. They are merely describing literal movements based on points of reference.
Now to my knowledge you never responded to these and I perhaps took it as acquiescence. Here's your chance. Tell me why these passages are problematic if they are literal.
I do give you some credit though, you did at least engage. I don't think Paul will.
