7 "Days"

[Assyrian]

I think you are picking holes in language not necessary scripture itself. Even today it's not uncommon to use phases "sunrise" "sunset" "sun going down". When I tell someone "I've got to run" I don't start running down the street but instead get into my car and drive away.
It's very natural for common language to use Earth ( the place of the speaker) as the point of reference just like my cop example. If the Joshua miracle happen today it would still be common to hear witness say the sun "stopped" or stood still in the sky.
So my point is it's very natural for people to describe anything relative to them even before the understanding of relative motion.

You haven't responded to my post at all. Like I said it isn't me picking holes, it is how the church interpreted these verse for 1500 years until science showed us it is really the earth goes round the sun. You may interpret the verse this way but you understand the science. Was there any reason for Christian before Copernicus not to take the text literally and think the text was describing the sun really moving and stopping at Joshua command?

 

[mark kennedy]

You haven't responded to my post at all. Like I said it isn't me picking holes, it is how the church interpreted these verse for 1500 years until science showed us it is really the earth goes round the sun. You may interpret the verse this way but you understand the science. Was there any reason for Christian before Copernicus not to take the text literally and think the text was describing the sun really moving and stopping at Joshua command?

Not only churches but astronomers interepreted the sun and moon revolving around the earth. It wasn't until the advent of the telescope that people, secular or relgious found otherwise. It is certainly not the same thing as creation, you don't get to change the meaning of 'bara' because of something you can see in a telescope.

 

[Smidlee]

You haven't responded to my post at all. Like I said it isn't me picking holes, it is how the church interpreted these verse for 1500 years until science showed us it is really the earth goes round the sun. You may interpret the verse this way but you understand the science. Was there any reason for Christian before Copernicus not to take the text literally and think the text was describing the sun really moving and stopping at Joshua command?

If Joshua miracle happen today and someone told me they saw the sun stopped in the sky I would take it literally they saw the sun stopped in the sky. I've read that NASA uses geocentric when launching satellites.
Now what actually is moving around what is only useful if you are in space. Men in the past can describe what happen in the heavens very accurate with geocentric.
Geocentric still works just like a tube TV still works yet are slowly being replaced by LCD and LED TVs. As long as man lives on Earth language will continue to be geocentric.

PS I believe just as the scripture is written that Joshua saw the sun stopped in the sky but I don't know if God actually stop the spin of the Earth or if it's was a local miracle like the "Star" the wise men saw. Heliocentric is useless in understanding what God actually did. I feel the same that modern science is useless in understanding how God created the universe and life.

 

[Assyrian]

Here is what Augustine had to say on the subject.

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture...

This is pretty typical of a controversy where people want to rush to take a side. The problem is there is nothing in Scripture to definitively settle the matter. Doctrines about how and why baptism should be conducted or the rapture come to mind for me. What I think he is trying to emphasis here is not to rush into defending something that is indefensible Scripturally. As he says, 'when it falls you fall with it'.

I would think the people who 'rush headlong' are convinced scripture definitely does settle the matter. The problem comes when scientific discoveries show that interpretation is wrong. We have to realise our understanding of scripture is fallible and our interpretations can be wrong, so that as human knowledge develops, if an interpretation is shown to be wrong then we leave it and find a better interpretation.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I,.​

He is not clear what he means here and he is certainly not rejected Creation as unscientific. He was a creationist, all Christians are, he is talking about taking an obscure text out of context and giving it meaning not originally intended. Notice he is emphasising celestial movements and phenomenon, the practice of astronomy comes to mind here.

No the examples he used weren't specifically about creation here, he was talking about the science of the day contradicting the claims some Christians were making about the bible. Of course Augustine's whole book is about Genesis and his point is that there are different interpretations of Genesis and not to keep holding onto interpretations if they are contradicted by future scientific developments.

What measurements, the telescope would not be invented for another five hundred years. They never measured the stars, the best astronomers could do then is track the movement and I quess predicting an eclipse was a big deal. I guess he was dealing with those who thought they could predict eclipses using the Bible. Augustine isn't talking scientifically, that's silly, the man was no astronomer. His interest is in warning Christians that it's foolish to use the Bible to predict eclipses or some such.

Like all literature, these exerpts should be allowed to interprete themselves.

You underestimate the ingenuity of Greek scientists and their use of trigonometry. Aristarchus in the 3rd century BC was the first to find a way to work out the distance of the moon, he wasn't that accurate, calculating it as 20 earth radii when the actual figure is 60.32. Hipparchus in the 2nd century used a similar technique to get a distance of 67 earth radii while Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD got the figure even closer at 59 earth radii. Meanwhile in the 3rd century BC Eratosthenes had worked out the circumference of the earth to within 1.5% of the actual figure.

Of course he is not talking about essential doctrine like the Trinity or Creation. What he is saying is that if you want to explore a facet in the 'multiplicity of senses' that Scripture can be explained in here is the proper way to approach it. First you hold the truth of Scripture 'without wavering'.

Wish I had more time for this but your not dealing with a Theistic Evolutionist approach to Biblical interpretation. Creation is not an obscure doctrine, it's an explicit historical narrative indicating God's miracles during creation week. Catholics usually identify 9 miracles, miracles of creation in Catholic doctrine is something that was not, then it was created, then it was.

It is absurd to suggest that Catholic dogma or doctrine could support Darwinian evolution. It's almost laughable.

Have a nice day
Mark

Since neither Augustine nor Aquinas took the days of Genesis literally, they would hardly have mistaken the doctrine of creation for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Your assumption and insistence the the text is an explicit historical narrative is one of those 'rushing headlong' that Augustine warned against.

 

[Assyrian]

Not only churches but astronomers interepreted the sun and moon revolving around the earth. It wasn't until the advent of the telescope that people, secular or relgious found otherwise. It is certainly not the same thing as creation, you don't get to change the meaning of 'bara' because of something you can see in a telescope.

You are mixing up interpretation of scripture with how people understood the motions of the earth sun and moon, how they interpreted the sky above their heads. It wasn't just scientists who thought the sun actually moved across the sky, everyone did. You just had to be outside on a reasonably sunny day to see what seemed to be happening and think that is what actually was going on. Since everybody though the sun went around the earth or at least across the sky, there was simply no reason for them to interpret Joshua other than literally, but as you say when telescopes came alone and science showed them their old interpretation was wrong they had to find news way to interpret the passages.

Telescopes aren't the only scientific development, so I don't see why you would want to limit Augustine's 'further progress in the search of truth' to the instrument that overturned the geocentric interpretation. Of course telescopes show us in great detail stars in different stages of development and cataclysmic destruction, it would certainly overturn an interpretation of bara where god just popped the stars into existence, but it wouldn't have benn a problem for Augustine who realised God can create by creating the natural processes that bring things into existence.

 

[Assyrian]

If Joshua miracle happen today and someone told me they saw the sun stopped in the sky I would take it literally they saw the sun stopped in the sky. I've read that NASA uses geocentric when launching satellites.
Now what actually is moving around what is only useful if you are in space. Men in the past can describe what happen in the heavens very accurate with geocentric.
Geocentric still works just like a tube TV still works yet are slowly being replaced by LCD and LED TVs. As long as man lives on Earth language will continue to be geocentric.

PS I believe just as the scripture is written that Joshua saw the sun stopped in the sky but I don't know if God actually stop the spin of the Earth or if it's was a local miracle like the "Star" the wise men saw. Heliocentric is useless in understanding what God actually did. I feel the same that modern science is useless in understanding how God created the universe and life.

Go back and read my last two posts to you and try to address what I said.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would think the people who 'rush headlong' are convinced scripture definitely does settle the matter. The problem comes when scientific discoveries show that interpretation is wrong. We have to realise our understanding of scripture is fallible and our interpretations can be wrong, so that as human knowledge develops, if an interpretation is shown to be wrong then we leave it and find a better interpretation.

No one is rushing headlong, the interpretation of Scripture follows certain rules. Astronomy is not something the Scriptures address directly, human lineage is something it does address directly. See how those two things are different.

No the examples he used weren't specifically about creation here, he was talking about the science of the day contradicting the claims some Christians were making about the bible. Of course Augustine's whole book is about Genesis and his point is that there are different interpretations of Genesis and not to keep holding onto interpretations if they are contradicted by future scientific developments.

No he was talking about people trying to predict eclipses and such, not about the length of days or the actuality of the event. What your doing is called equivocation, Augustine was pretty clear what kind of an interpretation he is warning against.

You underestimate the ingenuity of Greek scientists and their use of trigonometry. Aristarchus in the 3rd century BC was the first to find a way to work out the distance of the moon, he wasn't that accurate, calculating it as 20 earth radii when the actual figure is 60.32. Hipparchus in the 2nd century used a similar technique to get a distance of 67 earth radii while Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD got the figure even closer at 59 earth radii. Meanwhile in the 3rd century BC Eratosthenes had worked out the circumference of the earth to within 1.5% of the actual figure.

Yea....so...., they also know the earth was about 10,000 miles in circumference, so what?

Since neither Augustine nor Aquinas took the days of Genesis literally

Nonsense, Augustine believed creation happened in an instant, without the passage of time. He never disputed that it was on a particular day.

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation. (Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis)​

they would hardly have mistaken the doctrine of creation for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

They most certainly would be correct that the doctrine of creation is based on a literal reading of Genesis. Twice now you have denied the obvious, I must give you credit for audacity even though the error is obvious.

Your assumption and insistence the the text is an explicit historical narrative is one of those 'rushing headlong' that Augustine warned against.

The complaint of Augustine is almost identical to that of Francis Bacon and most creationists who have to deal with Darwinism. Before consulting the Scriptures themselves people like to tell you what the Scriptures mean.

Augustine wasn't talking about God exercising his power, in an instant, doing what only God can do as an error. Augustine was waring that you can rush headlong into a prediction, like an eclipse or some such, making yourself look foolish.

Plunging headlong you have assumed that Augustine did not take Genesis 1 literally, this is absurd. You plod further on claiming that it is some how in error to take Genesis 1 literally and Augustine took it as literally as you can take it, without so much as the passage of time.

Why do you do that?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

If Joshua miracle happen today and someone told me they saw the sun stopped in the sky I would take it literally they saw the sun stopped in the sky. I've read that NASA uses geocentric when launching satellites.
Now what actually is moving around what is only useful if you are in space. Men in the past can describe what happen in the heavens very accurate with geocentric.
Geocentric still works just like a tube TV still works yet are slowly being replaced by LCD and LED TVs. As long as man lives on Earth language will continue to be geocentric.

PS I believe just as the scripture is written that Joshua saw the sun stopped in the sky but I don't know if God actually stop the spin of the Earth or if it's was a local miracle like the "Star" the wise men saw. Heliocentric is useless in understanding what God actually did. I feel the same that modern science is useless in understanding how God created the universe and life.

Most likely the light of day was prolonged, how we don't know but it was God doing what only God can do. How God managed it is up for speculation, which should never be confused with a proper interpretation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Smidlee]

Go back and read my last two posts to you and try to address what I said.

If 99% of the church today could care less about heliocentric or geocentric models (which has proven to work in the past) then why do you feel it was different 500-1500 years ago? You seem to think a few eggheads in the past represent the church while I just think most of the church like today uses geocentric in language simply because we live on Earth.
Today we've got eggheads trying to fit millions of years of evolution in 7 days of creation.

 

[Johnnz]

Any person can write only from within their own experiences and culture. If we ask the question "What did Noah and Co actually see and experience?" we will have the right
framework when we read the story and try to understand what did happen then.

John
NZ

 

[mark kennedy]

Any person can write only from within their own experiences and culture. If we ask the question "What did Noah and Co actually see and experience?" we will have the right
framework when we read the story and try to understand what did happen then.

John
NZ

That's very true but what I really want to know is what happened, over about a week's time, just over 6000 years ago. What really staggers the imagination is that we might be looking at the only reliable history of humanity. Prophets in Egypt, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and of course Esther. That's just how civilization would be expected to grow following a flood like the Deluge of Genesis. The foundational civilization of Eqypt in northern Africa makes sense, then two empires spring up in the Middle East, then Greece, then Rome. If you look at it on a map you can see the drift westward.

I think what actually happened is there was a global flood. It is often overlooked, the Scriptures belong to antiquity. The Hebrew Scriptures were preserved for thousands of years, in the possession of the people you would expect to in control of them. Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have been attached to the Hebrew and Christian communittes their entire history. Show me another history book that has as it's most powerful proof of authenticity are the cultures they belong to.

Anyway, just something to think about.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

If 99% of the church today could care less about heliocentric or geocentric models (which has proven to work in the past) then why do you feel it was different 500-1500 years ago? You seem to think a few eggheads in the past represent the church while I just think most of the church like today uses geocentric in language simply because we live on Earth.
Today we've got eggheads trying to fit millions of years of evolution in 7 days of creation.

When ordinary people used geocentric language back then, do you think they realised it was just a convenient way of describing a sun that only appeared to move because the earth was rotating? Why ever would they think that way? Or would the simply assume that the sun they saw appear to move across the sky was actually moving?

By a few eggheads you mean all the church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, all of the church leaders and teachers who thought the Joshua stopped the sun moving across the sky? But eggheads or not, it was the theologians and scripture scholars who had to deal with heliocentrism a science that contradicted the literal interpretation of the church for 1500 years. Now please answer the question were these theological and scripture scholars wrong to find a new interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong?

 

[Johnnz]

That's very true but what I really want to know is what happened, over about a week's time, just over 6000 years ago. What really staggers the imagination is that we might be looking at the only reliable history of humanity. Prophets in Egypt, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and of course Esther. That's just how civilization would be expected to grow following a flood like the Deluge of Genesis. The foundational civilization of Eqypt in northern Africa makes sense, then two empires spring up in the Middle East, then Greece, then Rome. If you look at it on a map you can see the drift westward.

I think what actually happened is there was a global flood. It is often overlooked, the Scriptures belong to antiquity. The Hebrew Scriptures were preserved for thousands of years, in the possession of the people you would expect to in control of them. Both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have been attached to the Hebrew and Christian communittes their entire history. Show me another history book that has as it's most powerful proof of authenticity are the cultures they belong to.

Anyway, just something to think about.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Israel was a very latecomer amongst nations. Egypt preceded Israel; it was a well developed nation in the time of Abraham. Cave art developed more than 30K years ago, and written forms from around 4100 BC. We have quite extensive records of societies many some millennia BC. Many early customs and images are adaptions or common practices from surrounding cultures. The covenant with Abraham involving walking between slain animals is an example.

John
NZ

 

[Smidlee]

When ordinary people used geocentric language back then, do you think they realised it was just a convenient way of describing a sun that only appeared to move because the earth was rotating? Why ever would they think that way? Or would the simply assume that the sun they saw appear to move across the sky was actually moving?

The sun does move across the sky no matter if you uses geocentric or heliocentric. Am I wrong the fact that NASA uses geocentric when orbiting satellites in space?

By a few eggheads you mean all the church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, all of the church leaders and teachers who thought the Joshua stopped the sun moving across the sky?

I have no problem with church fathers being wrong and just like I believe scientists can be wrong today.
You seem to dismiss the fact geocentric models does work. I believe the sun did stop just as much as the star appeared to the wise man. Just because I believe strongly the sun did stop does not mean I support the geocentric model over heliocentric models. I could care less which model you favor the results are the same. What I don't assume is how God did it. If I had to guess I would say the sun stopped across the sky was a local miracle like the wise men star.

Now please answer the question were these theological and scripture scholars wrong to find a new interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong?

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they remain assumptions. We are in no better position today than they were in the past in knowing exactly what God did. All we can do is make assumptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Israel was a very latecomer amongst nations. Egypt preceded Israel; it was a well developed nation in the time of Abraham. Cave art developed more than 30K years ago, and written forms from around 4100 BC. We have quite extensive records of societies many some millennia BC. Many early customs and images are adaptions or common practices from surrounding cultures. The covenant with Abraham involving walking between slain animals is an example.

John
NZ

Egypt is recognized as the first civilization, I'm thinking the tributaries of the Nile as it makes it's way to the Mediterranean made great farmland. When Assyria and later Babylon started growing they used rather sophisticated irrigation and aqueducts. Even in the Fertile Crescent, aka Mesopotamia two rivers are not going to be as convenient as a natural irrigation system like the Nile Delta.

In the Genesis account four rivers are described, I think the Euphrates and the Tigris are two of them. I'm not sure what the fourth would be but I wonder if the Nile wasn't one of them. Before the Flood the Mediterranean would have been considerably smaller. Figure out where those three rivers would have converged and you might find Eden, geographically I mean.

 

[mark kennedy]

When ordinary people used geocentric language back then, do you think they realised it was just a convenient way of describing a sun that only appeared to move because the earth was rotating? Why ever would they think that way? Or would the simply assume that the sun they saw appear to move across the sky was actually moving?

Astronomers believed the sun rotated around the earth. That's probably what made predicting eclipses so hard if not impossible. You want to make science mutually exclusive but that really doesn't account for the Roman Catholic Churches continued interest in Astronomy. Protestants have been pretty indifferent while Jesuits have built observatories all over the world.

Galileo didn't go to an inquisition because of an observation he made regarding celestial objects. Galileo was in trouble because he challenged Aristotelian mechanics. When the professors of Pisa couldn't refute, or even argue effectively they turned to theologians.

What is more and I think this is important. Maybe God did stop the sun in the sky that day Joshua was pursuing his enemies. As a matter of fact that would be the preferred since it's an historical narrative. Now I'm open to the idea that perhaps God just prolonged the light by some means or the wording is too obscure to say. That does not change the fact that even though I'm a Young Earth Creationist by default, I will pursue Old Earth Cosmology as an alternative when it suits me.

You really have nothing of any relevance here. Galileo ran afoul of academics who were pro status quo and a Roman Catholic Church that was being challenged politically by the rise of Protestantism. The problems were not astronomy, the problem was Aristotelian scholasticism. The only modern equivalent would have to be Darwinism, nothing else in modern academics is nearly as transcendent.

]By a few eggheads you mean all the church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians, all of the church leaders and teachers who thought the Joshua stopped the sun moving across the sky? But eggheads or not, it was the theologians and scripture scholars who had to deal with heliocentrism a science that contradicted the literal interpretation of the church for 1500 years. Now please answer the question were these theological and scripture scholars wrong to find a new interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong?

What difference could that possibly make? The interpretation of astronomers, for the most part, was heliocentric. The literal interpretation is fine, it is describing in matter of fact terms and if that means God stopped the course of the sun in the sky then that's what happened.

I get a little tired of pretending this is a relevant line of reasoning. Can God stop the course of the sun in the sky? Would he want or need to? What exactly was Galileo doing at the Inquisition in the first place?

Those would be sound questions that actually pertain to something relevant. Belittling a literal interpretation depreciates Christian scholarship as it has been practiced for 2000 years. Historical narratives are almost exclusively literal, not withstanding figurative language. There is no figurative language in the opening chapters of Genesis. That's not because it's religious or because we want to believe something. It's because that's how historical narratives are read. The literal reading was never the problem, the problem has always been that the status quo doesn't need to be right or proven.

Perhaps God did stop the sun in the sky. Is that anymore incredible then darkness for the space of three hours?

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. (&#8230 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (Matthew 27:45, 27:51-54)​

At the opening of a revelation like the one at the time of Moses and Joshua or the New Testament advent of the Gospel, this kind of thing is presented as emphatic proof of divine intervention. Three hours of darkness, that's what it literally says...

...so tell me Assyrian, what actually happened there for three hours?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps

1Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

No one is rushing headlong, the interpretation of Scripture follows certain rules. Astronomy is not something the Scriptures address directly, human lineage is something it does address directly. See how those two things are different.

It was Calvin who told us "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy" Commentary Psalm 136:6. And Galileo quoting Cardinal Baronio said "the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes" Of course this all goes back to these ideas of Augustine and the basic principle applies as much to geology and biology as it does to astronomy.

But while this principle is a key to understanding the problem after the fact, after science showed their interpretation was wrong, it wasn't any help before, because no one was trying to glean astronomy from the Joshua miracle, they were simply taking the description of the miracle at face value.

No he was talking about people trying to predict eclipses and such, not about the length of days or the actuality of the event. What your doing is called equivocation, Augustine was pretty clear what kind of an interpretation he is warning against.

Remember the name of the book these quotations are from? It is Augustine's Literal Interpretation of Genesis. The previous paragraph Augustine was discussing Gen 1:2 The Spirit of God was stirring above the waters, the following paragraph is about the different interpretations of Gen 1:3 And God said, ‘Let there be light,’

You underestimate the ingenuity of Greek scientists and their use of trigonometry. Aristarchus in the 3rd century BC was the first to find a way to work out the distance of the moon, he wasn't that accurate, calculating it as 20 earth radii when the actual figure is 60.32. Hipparchus in the 2nd century used a similar technique to get a distance of 67 earth radii while Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD got the figure even closer at 59 earth radii. Meanwhile in the 3rd century BC Eratosthenes had worked out the circumference of the earth to within 1.5% of the actual figure.

Yea....so...., they also know the earth was about 10,000 miles in circumference, so what?

So, you though it wasn't possible to make astronomical measurements before the invention of the telescope. I have shown you how ancient Greeks were able to calculate the size and distance of the moon.

Nonsense, Augustine believed creation happened in an instant, without the passage of time. He never disputed that it was on a particular day.

Perhaps we ought not to think of these creatures at the moment they were produced as subject to the processes of nature which we now observe in them, but rather as under the wonderful and unutterable power of the Wisdom of God, which reaches from end to end mightily and governs all graciously. For this power of Divine Wisdom does not reach by stages or arrive by steps. It was just as easy, then, for God to create everything as it is for Wisdom to exercise this mighty power. For through Wisdom all things were made, and the motion we now see in creatures, measured by the lapse of time, as each one fulfills its proper function, comes to creatures from those causal reasons implanted in them, which God scattered as seeds at the moment of creation when He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation. (Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis)​

Yes he thought creation was instant, which means he didn't take the days of creation literally.

They most certainly would be correct that the doctrine of creation is based on a literal reading of Genesis. Twice now you have denied the obvious, I must give you credit for audacity even though the error is obvious.

I think your problem here is Augustine meant something quite different from you when you talk of reading Genesis literally. You think literal means interpreting everything at face value as a historical narrative. For Augustine it meant understanding the meaning of the writer, who he didn't think was writing literally. A literal interpretation was trying to understand the figures symbols and metaphors the writer was using, to understand what the writer meant.

The complaint of Augustine is almost identical to that of Francis Bacon and most creationists who have to deal with Darwinism. Before consulting the Scriptures themselves people like to tell you what the Scriptures mean.

You are assuming they haven't searched the scriptures themselves before they tell you your interpretation is wrong? It is when we find out from science our old interpretation is wrong, that is when we go back to scripture to search for a better understanding of what God is saying. That is what Augustine and Aquinas said we have to do. It is what the church had to do when Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton show them their old interpretation of the geocentric texts was wrong it is what Old Earth Creationists did when geology began showing us the age of the earth, it is what TEs did when we learned God crated us using evolution, and it is what YECs refuse to do because they think they know better.

Augustine wasn't talking about God exercising his power, in an instant, doing what only God can do as an error. Augustine was waring that you can rush headlong into a prediction, like an eclipse or some such, making yourself look foolish.

Plunging headlong you have assumed that Augustine did not take Genesis 1 literally, this is absurd. You plod further on claiming that it is some how in error to take Genesis 1 literally and Augustine took it as literally as you can take it, without so much as the passage of time.

Why do you do that?

Have a nice day
Mark

Did Augustine take the the six days of creation literally or didn't he?

 

[Assyrian]

The sun does move across the sky no matter if you uses geocentric or heliocentric.

No that is not the sun moving.

Am I wrong the fact that NASA uses geocentric when orbiting satellites in space?

You mean for satellites that actually are going round the earth?

I have no problem with church fathers being wrong and just like I believe scientists can be wrong today.

So why did you dismiss the Church fathers and all the scholars and theologians of the church for 1500 years as 'a few eggheads'?

You seem to dismiss the fact geocentric models does work.

You can use geocentric coordinates to describe the positions of satellites in earth orbit, the sun isn't in earth orbit. For earth orbit Newtonian (plus a dash Einsteinian relativity) physics works because the earth's gravity and your rocket propulsion are the main forces in operation. Try sending a probe to Mars or Neptune using geocentrism and you will get hopelessly lost. The physics doesn't work because the overwhelming force of gravity is towards the sun not the earth and it accelerates objects moving in the solar system into heliocentric orbits.

I believe the sun did stop just as much as the star appeared to the wise man. Just because I believe strongly the sun did stop does not mean I support the geocentric model over heliocentric models. I could care less which model you favor the results are the same. What I don't assume is how God did it. If I had to guess I would say the sun stopped across the sky was a local miracle like the wise men star.

However the miracle worked, it wasn't the sun stopping.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they remain assumptions. We are in no better position today than they were in the past in knowing exactly what God did. All we can do is make assumptions.

It isn't assumptions that were the problems, it is the conclusions, they read the text which sounded completely straightforward and literal to them and interpreted it literally that the sun really did stop in its very real motion across the sky. Now you still haven't answered my question. Were the theological and scripture scholars wrong to find a new interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong?

 

[Smidlee]

No that is not the sun moving.

The sun moves across the sky. I see it rise from the east then travels across the sky and sets in the west. This is like arguing the sun doesn't give off light but electromagnetic waves. Just because we now know that light is actually the product of the mind from reading electromagnetic waves hitting our retina does not change the interpretation of God saying "Let there be light."

You mean for satellites that actually are going round the earth?

So why did you dismiss the Church fathers and all the scholars and theologians of the church for 1500 years as 'a few eggheads'?

I only know of eggheads would care about which model is more correct: geocentric or heliocentric.

You can use geocentric coordinates to describe the positions of satellites in earth orbit, the sun isn't in earth orbit. For earth orbit Newtonian (plus a dash Einsteinian relativity) physics works because the earth's gravity and your rocket propulsion are the main forces in operation. Try sending a probe to Mars or Neptune using geocentrism and you will get hopelessly lost. The physics doesn't work because the overwhelming force of gravity is towards the sun not the earth and it accelerates objects moving in the solar system into heliocentric orbits.

Really? I thought they use the same principle. The determine where the object will be according to Earth sky(position) and aim the satellites in that direction.

However the miracle worked, it wasn't the sun stopping.

For all we know it was time that God actually stopped. If it was time that stood still the sun would still stop traveling across the sky.

It isn't assumptions that were the problems, it is the conclusions, they read the text which sounded completely straightforward and literal to them and interpreted it literally that the sun really did stop in its very real motion across the sky. Now you still haven't answered my question. Were the theological and scripture scholars wrong to find a new interpretation when science showed the old interpretation was wrong?

I have yet to see anything that show the old interpretation was wrong. The interpretation of the passage would be the same no matter what model you used. It's the same if you want to say the sun gives off light or electromagnetic waves since to us they are exactly the same.

 

[Calminian]

Science can show us dead people don't naturally come back to life, it cannot say if God can raise the dead or not.

I don't see how this helps you. For science actually must assume miracles like the Resurrection don't occur for methodological reasons.

But that is different from scientific evidence contradicting our interpretation of scripture. That isn't saying God couldn't have done it, but that he didn't do it that way because the evidence says it didn't happen. ....

The scientific evidence also rejects the Resurrection. According to everything we now know, it couldn't have happened that way. The evidence contradicts it. You keep trying to find a distinction but there isn't one there. Just yesterday I talked to a "christian" who praises the Lord often, and found out she didn't believe in an actual resurrection because of science. It just about floored me and the others listening. But she was consistent in her adherence to science.

I appreciate you realising Genesis is not a salvation issue, I think the difference between us here is I do not think it is a sin or rebellion honestly searching out the meaning of scripture.

Well not all scriptural interpretations are based in unbelief, but those that are I would say are based in rebellion. Many just don't like what scripture says for various reasons and therefore search for alternative interpretations. That's in a complexly different category that your traditional doctrinal disputes. Rejecting a straightforward reading of Genesis is akin to rejecting clear teachings on homosexuality, inerrancy, the existence of hell and the devil etc. The various alternative interpretations are not coming from the text, but alternatives human ideas. They are based in unbelief. "Science contradicts this, therefore, we have to read it differently."

It is in our nature to distrust God. Everyone one of us, saved or not, has this tendency. I won't condemn people over it, but at the same time wont sugarcoat it. I would even say that some very great and effective christian men and women have struggled with this kind of unbelief—people much more righteous that I. But it still is what it is.