7 "Days"

[Assyrian]

Still trying to be "more right" than the other guy?

No I still think he is completely wrong.

I could design a reference frame where the earth under my feet is standing still and the entire cosmos is spinning around it, and it would be totally valid. That's one of the results of Special Relativity: there are no privileged reference frames. In fact, if you believe in the Big Bang there isn't even a center of the cosmos that could be considered a preferred reference frame.

No problem with their not being a centre of the universe or needing the centre of the universe as a reference frame. General Relativity is handy for getting rid of the the orbit (and hence change in velocity) of the earth and sun around the centre of the galaxy since earth and sun are both in free fall in the same gravitational well.

It is one thing to spin your frame of reference around the earth, but what happens when the earth moves off in its very real orbit around the sun's gravitational well? If you want to spin the entire cosmos around the earth, what keeps the sun from wandering off, it is orbiting the milky way, even that orbit isn't regular since stars aren't distributed evenly as well as being attracted to and orbiting around the centre of the galaxy we are also attracted to the nearest galactic arm. Then you have the milky way itself orbiting the local cluster. That is a lot of movement. It is one thing if the earth is locked in orbit around the sun, they keep experiencing the same gravitational force. But if the the earth is fixed in the centre of the cosmos and the whole cosmos spinning around it, what is to keep the sun from wandering off? Earth's gravity is far too weak.

While the sun and stars all spin around the earth, they don't do it at the same rate because the sun's position in the heavens changes through the year as it travels along the ecliptic (or through the zodiac for ancient observers). Even if you spin the cosmos around the earth, what keeps the sun orbiting the earth every year? The sun's gravity could pull the earth around, the earth's gravity is far too weak.

Words like "sunrise" and "sunset" are not unscientific or incorrect by any stretch, given our point of view.

And if the church believed in Greek celestial mechanics, who cares? So did every educated person of that place and time.

And every uneducated person who stuck his nose outside his hut thought the sun really moved across the sky even if they didn't imagine it travelling in neat circles around the earth. The problem is that everybody who read Joshua or heard the story read out took it literally that the sun was really moving and stopped at Joshua's command. When science came along and showed them it was wrong, the church eventually changed its interpretation. This is what people like Augustine and Aquinas said should be done, what the Inquisition forgot when they put Galileo on trial, and what most of the church, Catholic and Protestant eventually got around to doing over the next century and a half. I still haven't got any Creationist to answer if the church was right to change its interpretation when science showed it was wrong.

 

[ChetSinger]

No I still think he is completely wrong.

So be it.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is nothing in the hebrew to solve this debate. We merely look at context just as we do for the sentence above. Both the use of morning and evening in Genesis as well as Moses' commentary in Exodus 20:10-11 make the meaning crystal clear. Like it or not, these were regular days. It's been said that if the author wanted to communicate literal days, he couldn't possibly have done a better job.

Even ancient Christians knew better. St. Augustine pointed out that it was logically absurd to imagine literal days when they call for mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Even ancient Christians knew better. St. Augustine pointed out that it was logically absurd to imagine literal days when they call for mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

He most certainly does not call literal days in Genesis 1 absurd:

Adopt one of the many interpretations which you maintained were possible.” To such a one my answer is that I have arrived at a nourishing kernel in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. (St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis)​

When someone wants to defame our Scripture we are to prove facts from reasonable evidence. When they produce something that is genuinely contrary to Scripture we are to hold to Scripture without a shadow of a doubt. Is that what you do Barbie because quite frankly, you could have fooled me.

He appeared to show no signs of struggle with the passage meaning a literal day:

It is said that light was made and separated from the darkness, the names “Day” and “Night” being given to them, and Scripture declares, “Evening was made and morning made, one day.” Hence it seems that this work of God was done in the space of a day, at the end of which evening came on, which is the beginning of night. Moreover, when the night was spent, a full day was completed, and the morning belonged to a second day, in which God then performed another work. (St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis.)​

First I am preached to about what the book of Genesis actually says, so I study it out and it says God created, 'bara', life. Then I'm preached to and told that science is somehow contradicting Scripture, find out it's just a few verses describing a miracle, not astronomical movements. Now I'm being told that Augustine condemns a literal intperpretation of 'days' in Genesis and guess what, he appears to have no problem with it.

Don't you guys get tired of being wrong so much?

 

[Assyrian]

You are notorious for denying the actual meaning with it right in front of you. Theistic evolutionists think they are superior scholars for some reason I never understood. You scatter a few random transliterated words and that's supposed to be a substantive argument. Next time, try referencing your source material.

I used the blueletterbible you used for your references. I presumed you would just look it up. You seem to be reverting to you old habit of using personal attack instead of responding to what I actually said.

Who are you to say it didn't? What is more, how does a miracle performed by God have any bearing on astronomic mechanics? How people 1500 years ago or 4000 years ago interpreted nature and Scripture is beside the point.

It is very much the point because the plain meaning of the text is that the sun stopped. That was how the church interpreted the passage for 1500 years and then they had to change their interpretation because science told them it was wrong.

It says the sun stopped, so are you saying nothing happened here because it's impossible for God to stop the sun? Are you saying the passage is mistaken? Reading it as written is not a private interpretation, deconstructing the actual meaning is.

Why would I be saying nothing happened? When the church changed their interpretation after Galileo, did they say that nothing happened? You yourself have a couple of different interpretations of the passage that don't contradict heliocentrism yet don't mean nothing happened. Asking if it is impossible for God to stop a non moving sun, isn't about possible and impossible, it is asking if God can do something that is self contradictory nonsense, the same as the old canard can God make a rock to big for him to move. To stop the sun moving around through the sky God would first have had to created a cosmos where the sun did move. God could have done that but he didn't.

Complaining about private interpretation is nonsense when you have already proposed private interpretations of you own for the passage. You also need to explain, when the interpretation of the Church Fathers and the whole church for 1500 years was abandoned and Christians had to come up with new interpretations, whether these new understandings of the text are 'private interpretations' or not.

Science contradicts this or science contradicts that, Science as what contradicts what exactly. I really hate it when you guys get pedantic.

From the way you are wriggling and avoiding answering me, what you hate is being put on the spot with points that expose the holes in creationism's insistence they should ignore science when it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis.

It should be pretty obvious from our long conversation here what science contradicted. In case you missed it, heliocentrism contradicted the literal interpretation of the church for 1500 years that God stopped the sun moving across the sky, because it showed the sun wasn't moving across the sky, it was the earth rotating.

This is the quote I got from the site that attributed the quote to St. Thomas. Then they reference Summa Theologica II-II Q.5 a.3 co.

The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect [ratione] of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Sacred Scripture, has not the habit of faith, but holds the [other articles] of faith by a mode other than faith. If someone holds in his mind a conclusion without knowing how that conclusion is demonstrated, it is manifest that he does not have scientific knowledge [i.e. knowledge of causes], but merely an opinion about it. So likewise, it is manifest that he who adheres to the teachings of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teachings of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will​

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church

That one is Aquinas.

In fact it highlights the problem the Catholic Church faced with Heliocentrism, because the common agreement of the church fathers theologians and scripture scholar and comentators for 1500 years was that God stopped the sun moving at Joshua's command. This was part of the teaching of the Church, which Aquinas says you cannot depart from or pick and choose, without being a heretic.

Simp does argue for the Aristotelian type of mechanics and for heliocentrism. Pope Urban had urged Galileo to lay out the Heliocentric view but without advocating. What this book looks like is an attempt to do exactly that with Simplico filling in as a strawman. I'm aware what the indictment and trial concerned, mostly it was over who gets to interpret Scripture.

And the Catholic church interpreted heliocentrism as heresy because it contradicts passages like Joshua. You need to show Aristotlean mechanics were the reason for his trial and condemnation, not just that they come up in his book.

It is essential doctrine. Now I've conceded that literal 24 hour days are not actually required even though that's exactly what it says. I've tried compromising on several points but it's never enough, you want to scape the Scriptures the way Galileo wanted to scrape Aristotelian mechanics but you not comparing apples to apples.

Sounds like you are happy to pick and choose which parts of a literal interpretation of Genesis are 'essential doctrine'. That is a lot of private interpretation and non literalism you are throwing into what you insist is the essential doctrine of Creation. How about showing where a literal interpretation of Genesis is mentioned in the many references to creation in the Nicaean Creed?

Creation is essential doctrine

You are still conflating your literal interpretation of Genesis (the parts you think have to be taken literally) with the doctrine of Creation.

and in an historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preferred.

If the Days of Genesis aren't literal, it isn't a literal narrative any more. But the interpretation of Genesis and the assumption of literalists that the creation narrative is a historical narrative, is not the same as the doctrine of Creation that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible.

Why don't you learn a little something about sound doctrine before you dismiss a literal Creation as an optional belief. This kind of random, private interpretation, does a great disservice to both the sciences and Scripture.

Are you talking about random private interpretation like your literal days being optional and your suggestion that Joshua told the sun to 'Be silent'?

Not the interpretation of Rome, the interpretation of every church father, scripture scholar, and theologian who wrote about the passage in the first 1500 years of church history. Not an obscure passage either, the reason so many people wrote about the passage is that it was one of the most amazing miracles in the OT. You know, the one everybody back then though was Joshua actually stopped the sun moving?

Not every church father had an opinion.

That is why I specified everyone who wrote about the passage. They didn't need to have everyone writing about every subject, they just needed all the church fathers who did write about a subject to agree.

I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”
Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615.​

The ones who had an opinion regarding astronomical mechanics would have agreed with the astronomers at the time that universally taught the sun revolved around the earth. So what? They were not all doing expositions of Joshua and proclaiming it to be a reliable astronomical source book.

Most of the the church father who wrote about the miracle weren't expounding on astronomical mechanics, they were discussing the Joshua's miracle and how God stopped the sun moving across the sky until the miracle was over. They didn't have to be writing an astronomical treatise for their interpretation to be contradicted by heliocentrism.

That's from your private definition of science and personal bias against the miraculous aspects of Scripture. The Scriptures interpret themselves just fine, when it says 'evening and morning the first day', I think it means exactly what is says, a single day.

You are saying it is my personal bias that says your personal interpretation of Genesis doesn't count as essential doctrine? How can the literal interpretation of Genesis be the essential doctrine of Creation when the days may or may not be literal?

The interpretation of Joshua has nothing to do with science, science isn't a telescope into history. There's nothing wrong with taking an historical passage literally, that's what your supposed to do. Science can't contradict a miracle, it can't be used for anything other then a naturally occurring phenomenon.

The church in Galileo's day knew better. Joshua's miracle wasn't a naturally occurring phenomenon, yet heliocentrism contradicted the traditional literal interpretation of the account. God did not stop the sun moving across the sky because the sun wasn't moving across the sky in the first place. There was nothing wrong with taking the passage literally, not until science showed the literal interpretation was wrong. When heliocentrism was establish, Christians who insisted on following their literal interpretation were simply following their own wilful ignorance.

Is this where your argument spins hopelessly in a downward spiral?

Sound's like I am right on target. I have shown the parallel between between Joshua and Genesis and the problem of clinging onto literal interpretation when science showed their interpretation was wrong. Maybe you think I am in a spiral because you are spinning out of control?

 

[frogman2x]

>>
I still haven't got any Creationist to answer if the church was right to change its interpretation when science showed it was wrong.[/quote]<<

Of course it was right. Many of man's interpretations are wrong and need to bb e corrected when proven to be wrong.

However science has not proven them wrong in this case.

Science has proven spontaneous generation to be wrong, so why hasn't the evlolutionist every admittted that and changed what they teach about the origin of life?

It should not be called the theory of evolution, it should be called the theories of evolution since they, l ike some theologians cannot agree on every interpretation.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Even ancient Christians knew better. St. Augustine pointed out that it was logically absurd to imagine literal days when they call for mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

You don't need the sun. All you need is light(let there be light and there was light) and the earth rotating.

kermit

 

[mark kennedy]

I used the blueletterbible you used for your references. I presumed you would just look it up. You seem to be reverting to you old habit of using personal attack instead of responding to what I actually said.

Ok, but all you put in there was the transliteration. It saves time if you have the Strong's number. I find personal attacks to be a nuisance myself, there is more then enough from Scripture to negate Darwinism. Personal attacks are really used more for a distraction and I don't need them.

It is very much the point because the plain meaning of the text is that the sun stopped. That was how the church interpreted the passage for 1500 years and then they had to change their interpretation because science told them it was wrong.

It says the sun 'stood still', the literal meaning is more often 'silenced'. I find that an odd way of expressing the event but we can be sure of one thing. What happened was an act of God and whether God simply stopped the sun in it's course or something else occurred science doesn't get to contradict this narrative. The description is of a miracle and you've said yourself science can't investigate a miracle.

Why would I be saying nothing happened? When the church changed their interpretation after Galileo, did they say that nothing happened? You yourself have a couple of different interpretations of the passage that don't contradict heliocentrism yet don't mean nothing happened. Asking if it is impossible for God to stop a non moving sun, isn't about possible and impossible, it is asking if God can do something that is self contradictory nonsense, the same as the old canard can God make a rock to big for him to move. To stop the sun moving around through the sky God would first have had to created a cosmos where the sun did move. God could have done that but he didn't.

Who says the interpretation changed, a miracle is a miracle, no matter what the natural course is before and after. I really don't get this 'interpretation changed', it seems pretty straight forward to me. During this age of miracles which covered about 70 years, Moses and Joshua were there for some of the more dramatic miracles from redemptive history. It could be that when the Levites had to describe what happened they reached for the best description they could find. The sun stopped, when this is the sun being frozen in it's course or the light was prolonged, it's a miracle. That means that science can't contradict it and it has no real bearing on the normal function of the sun.

Complaining about private interpretation is nonsense when you have already proposed private interpretations of you own for the passage. You also need to explain, when the interpretation of the Church Fathers and the whole church for 1500 years was abandoned and Christians had to come up with new interpretations, whether these new understandings of the text are 'private interpretations' or not.

That's what it is, your own private interpretation based on Medieval cosmology and a controversy you don't understand. I'm not complaining about your private interpretation, I'm calling it what it is, your own spin on what the narrative means. The bigger issue is who gets to interpret the Scriptures and it's done through ministers of the Gospel, who are miraculously filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the only interpreter of Scripture.

Galileo's trouble was between a devout Catholic and a neurotic Pope. Pope Urbane was dealing with the Reformation and Galileo had six audiences with this guy, one lasting 2 hours. Do you know how rare that is? What I really would like to know is what there was in the book that incited Rome in this way. One thing it doesn't have is a Biblical interpretation as it's basis.

From the way you are wriggling and avoiding answering me, what you hate is being put on the spot with points that expose the holes in creationism's insistence they should ignore science when it contradicts their literal interpretation of Genesis.

You still haven't told me why a literal interpretation is wrong. You have also failed to make the connection between Heliocentrism and Joshua 10:13. If you want me to do more then perhaps you should have an actual argument.

It should be pretty obvious from our long conversation here what science contradicted. In case you missed it, heliocentrism contradicted the literal interpretation of the church for 1500 years that God stopped the sun moving across the sky, because it showed the sun wasn't moving across the sky, it was the earth rotating.

And the church will continue to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit. Unbelievers don't get to decide the meaning, nor do astronomers, nor do theistic evolutionists who don't like literal interpretations. I see no other way of interpreting Joshua 10:13, the sun stopped moving. What does that have to do with Heliocentric astronomy?

That one is Aquinas.

This is what I mean by 'private interpretation':

Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will​

Creation is essential doctrine and to deny that is to reject an article of faith. You strangely silent on this point while you insist on attacking anything indicating God created life. You seem to have the idea that God created the universe but that's Genesis 1:1. Now you consider a figurative, even grossly figurative interpretation fixes this for you, that's your opinion, nothing more. Being a Theistic Evolutionist doesn't make you an authority on science.

Heliocentrism, because the common agreement of the church fathers theologians and scripture scholar and comentators for 1500 years was that God stopped the sun moving at Joshua's command. This was part of the teaching of the Church, which Aquinas says you cannot depart from or pick and choose, without being a heretic. And the Catholic church interpreted heliocentrism as heresy because it contradicts passages like Joshua. You need to show Aristotlean mechanics were the reason for his trial and condemnation, not just that they come up in his book.

I don't need to do anything, you should really lose the superiority complex. You can either read the book this whole thing came down to or pretend it was over a single passage of Scripture. Anyone who seriously studies this period ends up seeing that the Scientific Revolution was the rise of inductive methodologies replacing the deductive reasoning of Aristotelian mechanics. If you don't realize that Galileo got caught up in this over that it's on you.

Sounds like you are happy to pick and choose which parts of a literal interpretation of Genesis are 'essential doctrine'. That is a lot of private interpretation and non literalism you are throwing into what you insist is the essential doctrine of Creation. How about showing where a literal interpretation of Genesis is mentioned in the many references to creation in the Nicaean Creed?

When did I ever stop taking things literally in historical narratives. I entertain alternative readings but the literal is always preferred. Now the Nicene Creed confesses God as Creator, Christ as God, the Creator. Then it again affirms God's work in creation. That's the first three stanzas, this is foundational to the Christian faith. Astronomy does not, because it cannot, effect Christian doctrine. The Laws of Heredity do not, because they cannot, effect Christian doctrine.

You must be a creationist in order to be a Christian. The Nicene Creed and the clear testimony of Scripture makes that inescapable. Arguing continuously against creation is the practice of those of the opinion you can interpret events you don't think happened figuratively. Neither creation week nor Joshua 10:13 are subject to a figurative interpretation, not a shred of literary support for that approach. Scripture gets to interpret Scripture and the Scriptures are clear these events happened in time and space exactly as described. You either believe it or you don't because understanding it isn't that hard.

You are still conflating your literal interpretation of Genesis (the parts you think have to be taken literally) with the doctrine of Creation.

That is the creation doctrine, all professions from the New Testament regarding creation refer to Genesis 1. I'm not conflating anything, the doctrine of creation is based on Genesis 1 and the New Testament witness regarding creation.

If the Days of Genesis aren't literal, it isn't a literal narrative any more. But the interpretation of Genesis and the assumption of literalists that the creation narrative is a historical narrative, is not the same as the doctrine of Creation that God is the maker of all things visible and invisible.

The days are literal and even if you manage to convince someone they are not, it's still an historical narrative. You don't get to erase the literary content of the book with your private interpretation. Your just a guy with an opinion, at least that's what Aquinas would have told you.

Are you talking about random private interpretation like your literal days being optional and your suggestion that Joshua told the sun to 'Be silent'?

I'm not chasing random links in circle. If you have a point then make it.

That is why I specified everyone who wrote about the passage. They didn't need to have everyone writing about every subject, they just needed all the church fathers who did write about a subject to agree.

I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.&#8221;
Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615.​

Most of the the church father who wrote about the miracle weren't expounding on astronomical mechanics, they were discussing the Joshua's miracle and how God stopped the sun moving across the sky until the miracle was over. They didn't have to be writing an astronomical treatise for their interpretation to be contradicted by heliocentrism.

The Church Fathers don't get to decide how the heavens work or what the Scriptures actually say. Astronomers from the time believed the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo had a telescope and overturned a lot of commonly held beliefs about astronomical mechanics. Jesuits in time would build observatories and observe the exact same things, the problem was never the science involved and certainly nothing theological was involved. Galileo went to Piza and refuted Aristotelian mechanics. When they couldn't win that way they choose to prosecute him for theological issues. One of those theologians wrote that quote.

That's what happened, Joshua 10:13 has nothing to do with nor does Genesis 1.

You are saying it is my personal bias that says your personal interpretation of Genesis doesn't count as essential doctrine? How can the literal interpretation of Genesis be the essential doctrine of Creation when the days may or may not be literal?

Because, Genesis is an historical narrative. There have been a few questionable attempts at interpreting the days of creation figuratively. They do not stand up under sound exegesis and they certainly don't make a lick of sense from the stand point of the English translation.

You still think you can decide that a day isn't a real day in a passage that calls it a day. Based on that my interpretation concerning Joshua 10:13 should be changed to what exactly? Figurative?

The church in Galileo's day knew better. Joshua's miracle wasn't a naturally occurring phenomenon, yet heliocentrism contradicted the traditional literal interpretation of the account. God did not stop the sun moving across the sky because the sun wasn't moving across the sky in the first place. There was nothing wrong with taking the passage literally, not until science showed the literal interpretation was wrong. When heliocentrism was establish, Christians who insisted on following their literal interpretation were simply following their own wilful ignorance.

Geocentric astronomy was what all astronomers at the time believed. Involving the Scriptures was an act of desperation by someone who couldn't argue based on the actual evidence. That's all this comes down to and as always, your arguing in circles around proofs already refuted.

Genesis 1 is creation, it can only be interpreted literally for a lot of reason, some literary some theological. Regardless of whether or not you think 'days' in Genesis must be taken literally one thing is obvious. To argue that Genesis 1 can't be taken literally calls into question if creation can be taken literally.

You kind of painted yourself into this corner. You can't argue against Genesis 1 without arguing against creation. You cannot deny that creation is essential doctrine because when you do you reject the Nicene Creed. You can't change an historical narrative like Genesis 1 to poetry we can interpret any way we want to. You have shown no direct connection of Heliocentric astronomy to essential doctrine of any kind.

Sound's like I am right on target. I have shown the parallel between between Joshua and Genesis and the problem of clinging onto literal interpretation when science showed their interpretation was wrong. Maybe you think I am in a spiral because you are spinning out of control?

You have shown no parallel whatsoever, they are both historical narratives and the literal reading is preferred. Aside from any consideration from the text or the Scriptures to the contrary it should be read as written, literally.

 

[Smidlee]

You have shown no parallel whatsoever, they are both historical narratives and the literal reading is preferred. Aside from any consideration from the text or the Scriptures to the contrary it should be read as written, literally.

Amen. I believe God literally made the sun stood still in the sky just like He move the sun back ten degrees for Hezekiah. It stated He did this for Hezekiah not for the whole world. When told the Bible isn't a science book I say the Bible is greater than any science book. I have no problem with God literally moving the sun back for Hezekiah and at the same time keeping the sun in place for everyone else.

It is very much the point because the plain meaning of the text is that the sun stopped. That was how the church interpreted the passage for 1500 years and then they had to change their interpretation because science told them it was wrong.

Every church I've been to still preached the sun stopped and have no problem with that interpretion. I find most people in the church (including my wife) could care less what science says about the Bible. I would guess a lot of people 500 years ago could care less too which I find it interesting you trying to speak for the whole church.

Chet, your claim to be more right than both of them would hold more water if you addressed Assyrian's coffee cup example. If there is no privileged reference frame, then the coffee shouldn't spill in one car and not the other. If it does, then relativity doesn't get you to where you're trying to go.

If a car going 60 mph crashes into a car that's stopped the coffee would spill in both cars. Now if one car come in contract with another opposing force before reaching the other car then of course that car coffee would spill. The coffee spills because the opposing force has weaker effect on the coffee than the cup & car.

 

[Assyrian]

Ok, but all you put in there was the transliteration. It saves time if you have the Strong's number. I find personal attacks to be a nuisance myself, there is more then enough from Scripture to negate Darwinism. Personal attacks are really used more for a distraction and I don't need them.

I didn't just give you the transliterations, I told you the most common meanings. I also discussed the implications these meaning had for translating the text.

It says the sun 'stood still', the literal meaning is more often 'silenced'. I find that an odd way of expressing the event

The sun being silenced is a very odd way of expressing it and makes no sense outside of the chattery sun in Teletubbies. It making no sense is part of the reason bible translators don't use it. There is also the fact while H1826 damam can mean be silent or be still/wait, by far the most common meaning of the second word H5975 amad is stand or stood, but it never means silence.

but we can be sure of one thing. What happened was an act of God and whether God simply stopped the sun in it's course or something else occurred science doesn't get to contradict this narrative. The description is of a miracle and you've said yourself science can't investigate a miracle.

Science can't contradict scripture, it can and did contradict the literal interpretation of the narrative. And while science cannot tell us what did happen in Joshua's miracle, it was very good at showing that the church's interpretation of the miracle didn't happen that way.

Who says the interpretation changed, a miracle is a miracle, no matter what the natural course is before and after. I really don't get this 'interpretation changed', it seems pretty straight forward to me. During this age of miracles which covered about 70 years, Moses and Joshua were there for some of the more dramatic miracles from redemptive history. It could be that when the Levites had to describe what happened they reached for the best description they could find. The sun stopped, when this is the sun being frozen in it's course or the light was prolonged, it's a miracle. That means that science can't contradict it and it has no real bearing on the normal function of the sun.

Do you think that is how the church interpreted Joshua before Copernicus and Galileo? Or did they think the sun really stopped? If your new explanation is not how the church interpreted the miracle, If they went from the sun literally stopping at Joshua's command, to interpretations like language of appearance, or accommodation - God speaking to his people in the cosmology they understood, then that means the interpretation changed. The may still think it is a miracle, but they are still interpreting the text differently.

That's what it is, your own private interpretation based on Medieval cosmology and a controversy you don't understand. I'm not complaining about your private interpretation, I'm calling it what it is, your own spin on what the narrative means. The bigger issue is who gets to interpret the Scriptures and it's done through ministers of the Gospel, who are miraculously filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the only interpreter of Scripture.

Private interpretation is a slogan Catholics use against Protestant. Unless come up with a coherent basis for using it, which you haven't so far, it is simply empty rhetoric, and it is pretty odd coming from a protestant, especially one who keeps using wild private interpretations like your Bible dictionary pick and mix.

It is also very ironic when the literal interpretation of Joshua before heliocentrism was the opposite of private interpretation, it was the common teaching of the church fathers, theological scholars and commentator. It was people like Galileo coming up with new interpretations that was the private interpretation. But if that is private interpretation, what is it when the ministers of the gospel of the time, the theologians and scholars of both Catholic and Protestant churches sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they search the scriptures and came up interpretations like Galileo's.

Galileo's trouble was between a devout Catholic and a neurotic Pope. Pope Urbane was dealing with the Reformation and Galileo had six audiences with this guy, one lasting 2 hours. Do you know how rare that is? What I really would like to know is what there was in the book that incited Rome in this way. One thing it doesn't have is a Biblical interpretation as it's basis.

Yes there is loads of political and personal background you could look at too, but I don't see your problem understanding why they considered the book heretical. The book taught the earth rotates and goes round the sun which contradicted the traditional interpretation of Joshua and Ecclesiastes, though the book never mentioned scripture, to the Cardinals in the Inquisition its teaching contradicted scripture and was heretical. Why is this such a problem for you to understand, unless you just don't want it to be true?

You still haven't told me why a literal interpretation is wrong. You have also failed to make the connection between Heliocentrism and Joshua 10:13. If you want me to do more then perhaps you should have an actual argument.

I have. You keep wriggling out of addressing it.

And the church will continue to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit. Unbelievers don't get to decide the meaning, nor do astronomers, nor do theistic evolutionists who don't like literal interpretations. I see no other way of interpreting Joshua 10:13, the sun stopped moving. What does that have to do with Heliocentric astronomy?

Heliocentrism shows us the sun doesn't move across the sky or orbit the earth. It is the earth rotating that makes the sun appear to move. If the sun wasn't actually moving across the sky, then the sun didn't stop. Astronomy and science may not be able to tell us what the meaning of the text is, but it is very good at saying what the meaning isn't. Astronomers showed that the traditional literal interpretation of Joshua was wrong while geologists and biologists have shown that the traditional literal interpretation of Genesis are wrong too. And just as the church after Galileo listened to godly ministers scholars and theologians who looked for better interpretations of Joshua and Ecclesiastes when science showed the old interpretation was wrong, so the church today should listen to the godly ministers, scholars and theologians who have searched for better understandings of Genesis now that science has shown the old interpretation is wrong.

This is what I mean by 'private interpretation':

Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves [even] one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things (but if he is not obstinate, he is not a heretic but only erring). Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will​

See that 'in all things' that included the teaching of the church fathers that the book of Joshua say the sun stopped. However a literal interpretation of Genesis was not the teaching of the church, since church fathers and scripture scholars interpreted it in different ways literal and non literal.

Creation is essential doctrine and to deny that is to reject an article of faith. You strangely silent on this point while you insist on attacking anything indicating God created life. You seem to have the idea that God created the universe but that's Genesis 1:1. Now you consider a figurative, even grossly figurative interpretation fixes this for you, that's your opinion, nothing more. Being a Theistic Evolutionist doesn't make you an authority on science.

Of course Creation was a doctrine of the church, none of the church fathers questioned it, not did any of the church's theologians or scholars. God is the one who made all things, visible and invisible and all things were created through Christ and by him. That is essential doctrine, and I wish you would stop mixing it up with interpreting Genesis literally.

I don't need to do anything, you should really lose the superiority complex. You can either read the book this whole thing came down to or pretend it was over a single passage of Scripture. Anyone who seriously studies this period ends up seeing that the Scientific Revolution was the rise of inductive methodologies replacing the deductive reasoning of Aristotelian mechanics. If you don't realize that Galileo got caught up in this over that it's on you.

Of course you don't need to do anything. I am simply saying what you need if you want to you want you claim about Galileo's trial to be anything other than baseless assertion. Of course I understand the scientific revolution Galileo was leading. His mechanics, his laws of motion, his experiments with cannon balls, completely overturned Aristotelian physics. He showed the trajectory cannon balls take in flight by experiment where the Aristotelians attempted and failure to explain it by induction. It was a complete scientific revolution, and it was accepted in very kingdom and state throughout Europe because armies needed to know where their cannon balls were going to land and how to point them the right way to hit their targets. The Papal States had armies too and they wanted their cannon balls to hit their targets too.

Now you can give up your misunderstanding of Galileo's trial. You can keep making baseless assertions. Or you can actually try to back you case up. But if you want to do that:

You need to show Aristotlean mechanics were the reason for his trial and condemnation, not just that they come up in his book.
​

When did I ever stop taking things literally in historical narratives. I entertain alternative readings but the literal is always preferred.

You prefer the literal reading, but the literal days are optional. So how is the literal reading of Genesis 'essential doctrine' when the literal days aren't essential?

Now the Nicene Creed confesses God as Creator, Christ as God, the Creator. Then it again affirms God's work in creation. That's the first three stanzas, this is foundational to the Christian faith. Astronomy does not, because it cannot, effect Christian doctrine. The Laws of Heredity do not, because they cannot, effect Christian doctrine.

Instead of using hand wavy words like 'affirm' and trying to slip in all you own personal opinions too, what does the Nicene creed actually confess? Does it tell us that God made heaven and earth and all that is? Or does it tell us that how God made them and say that interpreting the Genesis account literally are part of the creed too?

You must be a creationist in order to be a Christian.

Again equivocating and conflating belief in Creation with being a creationist, I don't know why you keep doing this when we point out your mistake. Perhaps you just like the argument because you think is sounds good if you ignore the gaping fallacy. TE's believe in Creation, another term for them is Evolutionary Creationist. I don't like the term because 'creationist' is usually used to describe YECs and OECs this is the meaning you are equivocating with the belief in God as creator.

The Nicene Creed and the clear testimony of Scripture makes that inescapable. Arguing continuously against creation is the practice of those of the opinion you can interpret events you don't think happened figuratively. Neither creation week nor Joshua 10:13 are subject to a figurative interpretation, not a shred of literary support for that approach. Scripture gets to interpret Scripture and the Scriptures are clear these events happened in time and space exactly as described. You either believe it or you don't because understanding it isn't that hard.

That is really an odd assertion when you know that throughout church history there have been figurative as well literal interpretations of the creation week. It was Joshua they always interpreted literally before Galileo. After Galileo, the new interpreations they found weren't figurative but used ideas like accommodation or language of appearance.

That is the creation doctrine, all professions from the New Testament regarding creation refer to Genesis 1. I'm not conflating anything, the doctrine of creation is based on Genesis 1 and the New Testament witness regarding creation.

The NT certainly teaches the doctrine of Creation:
John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Rev 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."
But it no more helps your conflation than the Nicene Creed. The NT has loads of references to God creating everything, but no mention of 24 hour creation days or interpreting Genesis. Just because Genesis describes the creation and you interpret Genesis literally, it doesn't mean a literal interpretation of Genesis is the doctrine of Creation. The Doctrine of Creation is that God created everything, it does not mean taking the story in Genesis literally. That is your understanding of how God created, not the fact God created everything whether Genesis describes it literally or not.

To be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

To be continued...

The days are literal and even if you manage to convince someone they are not, it's still an historical narrative. You don't get to erase the literary content of the book with your private interpretation. Your just a guy with an opinion, at least that's what Aquinas would have told you.

And Aquinas would have to you that your literal interpretation and conviction it is a historical narrative is you personal opinion too. Especially since Aquinas didn't interpret the days literally. The interpretation op the creation week was never church doctrine, let alone the doctrine of Creation, because the church fathers and scripture scholars never agreed on interpreting it literally. They did agree on Creation.

I'm not chasing random links in circle. If you have a point then make it.

So If I don't give links but explain my point, you ignore it and complain about a lack of links. If I do give a link, you complain about it having a link and still ignore my point. The common thread I see here is you like to make excuses not to answer the points I make. That link was to your own post where you suggested Joshua commanding the sun to 'be silent' as a translation.

With that in mind and without the link, here is my question again:

Are you talking about random private interpretation like your literal days being optional and your suggestion that Joshua told the sun to 'Be silent'?
​

The Church Fathers don't get to decide how the heavens work or what the Scriptures actually say.

Odd, the Catholic church did think the Church Father got to decide how scripture is interpreted when they are in common agreement of a subject. The alternative is heresy and 'personal interpretation'. We may not let the church Father decide what scripture says for us, though I value and respect their opinions. But that fact is their interpretation of Joshua was the interpretation of the church back then, even without the teaching of the Fathers it was the obvious meaning of the text back then. And that interpreation had to change when science showed us it was wrong.

Astronomers from the time believed the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo had a telescope and overturned a lot of commonly held beliefs about astronomical mechanics. Jesuits in time would build observatories and observe the exact same things, the problem was never the science involved and certainly nothing theological was involved. Galileo went to Piza and refuted Aristotelian mechanics. When they couldn't win that way they choose to prosecute him for theological issues. One of those theologians wrote that quote.

That's what happened, Joshua 10:13 has nothing to do with nor does Genesis 1.

So why did the Inquisition just ban him from teaching heliocentrism, not silence him on mechanics?

You are saying it is my personal bias that says your personal interpretation of Genesis doesn't count as essential doctrine? How can the literal interpretation of Genesis be the essential doctrine of Creation when the days may or may not be literal?

Because, Genesis is an historical narrative. There have been a few questionable attempts at interpreting the days of creation figuratively. They do not stand up under sound exegesis and they certainly don't make a lick of sense from the stand point of the English translation.

Sorry that doesn't answer my question.

You still think you can decide that a day isn't a real day in a passage that calls it a day. Based on that my interpretation concerning Joshua 10:13 should be changed to what exactly? Figurative?

Joshua doesn't show you how to interpret the day of Genesis, it just shows you need a different interpretation when science has shown you your own interpretation is wrong.

Geocentric astronomy was what all astronomers at the time believed. Involving the Scriptures was an act of desperation by someone who couldn't argue based on the actual evidence. That's all this comes down to and as always, your arguing in circles around proofs already refuted.

Genesis 1 is creation, it can only be interpreted literally for a lot of reason, some literary some theological. Regardless of whether or not you think 'days' in Genesis must be taken literally one thing is obvious. To argue that Genesis 1 can't be taken literally calls into question if creation can be taken literally.

You kind of painted yourself into this corner. You can't argue against Genesis 1 without arguing against creation. You cannot deny that creation is essential doctrine because when you do you reject the Nicene Creed. You can't change an historical narrative like Genesis 1 to poetry we can interpret any way we want to. You have shown no direct connection of Heliocentric astronomy to essential doctrine of any kind.

You haven't refuted anything. You have just repeated some dodges and equivocation. Astronomers of the time being geocentric doesn't change the fact that church fathers and theological interpreted Joshua's miracle as God stopping the sun from moving across the sky or the fact the church had to change their interpretation when scientific developments showed their old interpretation was wrong. Now you are conflating taking Genesis literally with 'taking creation literally', which doesn't make sense, because creation is a work of God that is either happened or didn't happen. It is not a story or text to be interpreted literally or figuratively.

Perhaps you would like to address my comparison between Joshua and Genesis again:

There was nothing wrong with taking the passage literally, not until science showed the literal interpretation was wrong. When heliocentrism was establish, Christians who insisted on following their literal interpretation were simply following their own wilful ignorance
​

You have shown no parallel whatsoever, they are both historical narratives and the literal reading is preferred. Aside from any consideration from the text or the Scriptures to the contrary it should be read as written, literally.

Joshua is certainly a historical narrative, it didn't help the church when they had to reinterpret the miracle after science showed it was wrong. So even if your think Genesis is a historical narrative, you still have to find another interpretation when science has shown you interpretation is wrong. There is no immunity for thinking Genesis is a historical narrative, that is just as much pert of you interpretation science has shown to be wrong. All the church does is make the gospel seem foolish if they still cling to interpretations science has show are wrong, it is what happened with geocenrtism, it is what Augustine warned about so long ago with his 'disgraceful and dangerous' warning, it is what Old Earth Creationists do when they hold onto interpreations of Genesis that deny evolution and what Young Earth Creationists do when they deny both evolution and the age of the earth.

 

[KWCrazy]

Whenever someone wants to misrepresent something in the Bible, they take a word, phrase or verse out of context and proclaim that it means what they want it to mean. When a person wants to show in context what the bible actually states, he presents a "passage," which is a block of verses that give the complete context. People who misrepresent creation never use passages; only words out of context. That's why they take the fact that like "day" "yom" can have different meanings under differerent circumstances. The problem is, they don't provide the proper context. If they did, everyone would know that "the evening and the morning were the first day" could not possible represent millions of years of evolution. Keep in mind that whenever someone tries to teach something that is contrary to the Bible that you need to look up the context in which his "evidence" is taken.

I don't know why some Christians do the work of the devil in presenting lies about what is written. I do know that I was raised to believe in an old earth by a mother who believed in the lies she was told and never bothered to actually read the text involved to make an informed decision. After all, God Himself stated that He made the world in six days and rested on the seventh day when He carved the commandments on the stone tablet and gave it to Moses (Exodus 20:11).

The bottom line is that you need to read the Bible and put your faith in the word of God, not the contrived stories of man. We didn't evolve from anuything. We were created by God at the end of a six day creation, just as the book of Genesis declares. Read it for yourself. It's some of the most straightforward writing in the bible. It's so clear children understand it easily.

 

[KWCrazy]

Joshua is certainly a historical narrative, it didn't help the church when they had to reinterpret the miracle after science showed it was wrong. So even if your think Genesis is a historical narrative, you still have to find another interpretation when science has shown you interpretation is wrong. There is no immunity for thinking Genesis is a historical narrative, that is just as much pert of you interpretation science has shown to be wrong. All the church does is make the gospel seem foolish if they still cling to interpretations science has show are wrong,

What foolishness. Science has never shown the Bible to be wrong. Science is the study of the natural world. It can make no claim about the actions of the supernatural. If you don't know this, then you know nothing about science.

When God through Joshua made the sun stand still in the sky for a say, there are two possibilities. 1. God suspended time for a day. He created it, and He can suspend it. 2. God froze the rotation of the earth for a day. He created it. He can spin it backward tomorrow if He wants too. There are no limitations on the Creator; certainly not natural law which He also created. Of the 333 miracles in the Bible, what they have in common is that none of them are scientifically possible. If they were, they wouldn't be miracles. Miracles show the power of God. Card tricks do not. God is glorified by doing the impossible. This actually validates what is written. Science doesn't disprove any of it.

You really need to get a better understanding about the definition and limitations of science if you think you can use it to disprove the word of God. It might help to learn what a miracle is, too. You clearly have a hard time with this.

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't just give you the transliterations, I told you the most common meanings. I also discussed the implications these meaning had for translating the text.

You cut and pasted the transliterations and brief definitions with some passing remarks. You could have linked it to you source with very little trouble.

The sun being silenced is a very odd way of expressing it and makes no sense outside of the chattery sun in Teletubbies. It making no sense is part of the reason bible translators don't use it. There is also the fact while H1826 damam can mean be silent or be still/wait, by far the most common meaning of the second word H5975 amad is stand or stood, but it never means silence.

See, that's much better.

Science can't contradict scripture, it can and did contradict the literal interpretation of the narrative. And while science cannot tell us what did happen in Joshua's miracle, it was very good at showing that the church's interpretation of the miracle didn't happen that way.

You seem to think that because Galileo was right and Rome was wrong that means the miracle didn't happen. That's simply not the case, in fact, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it. All it says is the sun stood still, what the miracle actually was is an open question, not that you would ever admit it. That's all there is and Rome has been wrong about a lot of things, so what?

Do you think that is how the church interpreted Joshua before Copernicus and Galileo? Or did they think the sun really stopped? If your new explanation is not how the church interpreted the miracle, If they went from the sun literally stopping at Joshua's command, to interpretations like language of appearance, or accommodation - God speaking to his people in the cosmology they understood, then that means the interpretation changed. The may still think it is a miracle, but they are still interpreting the text differently.

Don't you realize astronomers believed the same thing. Your arguing in circles, this is getting tiresome.

Private interpretation is a slogan Catholics use against Protestant. Unless come up with a coherent basis for using it, which you haven't so far, it is simply empty rhetoric, and it is pretty odd coming from a protestant, especially one who keeps using wild private interpretations like your Bible dictionary pick and mix.

You brought up Aquinas and how he was opposed to creation thought or some such. The truth is he was opposed to people who want to take a verse of Scripture and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. that's what a private interpretation is, this is where it comes from:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. (1Peter 1:20)​

It is also very ironic when the literal interpretation of Joshua before heliocentrism was the opposite of private interpretation, it was the common teaching of the church fathers, theological scholars and commentator. It was people like Galileo coming up with new interpretations that was the private interpretation. But if that is private interpretation, what is it when the ministers of the gospel of the time, the theologians and scholars of both Catholic and Protestant churches sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they search the scriptures and came up interpretations like Galileo's.

For the third and final time the literal interpretation has not change. Why are you being so dense about this, it's still interpreted literally.

Yes there is loads of political and personal background you could look at too, but I don't see your problem understanding why they considered the book heretical. The book taught the earth rotates and goes round the sun which contradicted the traditional interpretation of Joshua and Ecclesiastes, though the book never mentioned scripture, to the Cardinals in the Inquisition its teaching contradicted scripture and was heretical. Why is this such a problem for you to understand, unless you just don't want it to be true?

Your not really saying anything.

I have. You keep wriggling out of addressing it.

There's nothing to address, you have clarified a single point of the exposition, the translation or the proper interpretation. You just keep chanting how the 'church' was wrong and their interpretation was wrong so we must be wrong about Genesis 1. It's nonsense. You haven't made a point.

See that 'in all things' that included the teaching of the church fathers that the book of Joshua say the sun stopped. However a literal interpretation of Genesis was not the teaching of the church, since church fathers and scripture scholars interpreted it in different ways literal and non literal.

They didn't spend any time on this passage, the church fathers were more concerned about actual theological issues.

Of course Creation was a doctrine of the church, none of the church fathers questioned it, not did any of the church's theologians or scholars. God is the one who made all things, visible and invisible and all things were created through Christ and by him. That is essential doctrine, and I wish you would stop mixing it up with interpreting Genesis literally.

Creation is both literal and essential doctrine. I wish you would stop pretending that you don't understand that.

Of course you don't need to do anything. I am simply saying what you need if you want to you want you claim about Galileo's trial to be anything other than baseless assertion. Of course I understand the scientific revolution Galileo was leading. His mechanics, his laws of motion, his experiments with cannon balls, completely overturned Aristotelian physics. He showed the trajectory cannon balls take in flight by experiment where the Aristotelians attempted and failure to explain it by induction. It was a complete scientific revolution, and it was accepted in very kingdom and state throughout Europe because armies needed to know where their cannon balls were going to land and how to point them the right way to hit their targets. The Papal States had armies too and they wanted their cannon balls to hit their targets too.

Canon balls? Seriously? The dawn of the Scientific Revolution with the 30 years war and the Civil war in England looming just over the horizon. You bring up cannon balls and that's it. While it's true that a new kind of math, a science that was focused the movement of objects had a foundational concept. It was called the Y squared, it would eventually develop into Newton's theory of gravity, and calculus, and well...science as we know it today. This was a new science emerging, not unlike the emergence of genetics in the 21st century.

Now you can give up your misunderstanding of Galileo's trial. You can keep making baseless assertions. Or you can actually try to back you case up. But if you want to do that:

You need to show Aristotlean mechanics were the reason for his trial and condemnation, not just that they come up in his book.​

I didn't misunderstand anything. He was put on trial for contradicting Aristotle not Joshua 10:13. The Scriptures were brought up later but the only thing to come of the Inquisition of Galileo was that book was banned. You know, that book you never read that spends so much time on Aristotelian mechanics.

You prefer the literal reading, but the literal days are optional. So how is the literal reading of Genesis 'essential doctrine' when the literal days aren't essential?

It's not optional, when it says 'days' it means 'days' unless there is some special reason for it not to, usually in the immediate context.

Instead of using hand wavy words like 'affirm' and trying to slip in all you own personal opinions too, what does the Nicene creed actually confess? Does it tell us that God made heaven and earth and all that is? Or does it tell us that how God made them and say that interpreting the Genesis account literally are part of the creed too?

It says God created the heavens and the earth, that's word for word out of Genesis and frankly, it would be the height of ignorance to argue that a doctrine concerning creation is unrelated to Genesis 1. Genesis is always interpreted literally, unless you have some justification for changing the actual meaning. Your just doing it because you don't believe what it says, not because it's hard to understand what's written there.

Again equivocating and conflating belief in Creation with being a creationist, I don't know why you keep doing this when we point out your mistake. Perhaps you just like the argument because you think is sounds good if you ignore the gaping fallacy. TE's believe in Creation, another term for them is Evolutionary Creationist. I don't like the term because 'creationist' is usually used to describe YECs and OECs this is the meaning you are equivocating with the belief in God as creator.

No, you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian. No one said you have to be YEC or OEC, no one said you have to take the 'days' in Genesis 1 literally, even though they are literal days. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and you know it. Creation isn't just some passing doctrine that is a matter of personal preference or private interpretation. It's an article of faith and to deny creation is to deny the faith. I didn't say that, St. Thomas Aquinas did and have all Christians down through the ages.

Now Theistic Evolutionists think they can come along and just redefine everything they don't believe. It doesn't work that way.

That is really an odd assertion when you know that throughout church history there have been figurative as well literal interpretations of the creation week. It was Joshua they always interpreted literally before Galileo. After Galileo, the new interpreations they found weren't figurative but used ideas like accommodation or language of appearance.

Joshua is still interpreted literally, what is wrong with you?

The NT certainly teaches the doctrine of Creation:

Yes I know.

But it no more helps your conflation than the Nicene Creed. The NT has loads of references to God creating everything, but no mention of 24 hour creation days or interpreting Genesis. Just because Genesis describes the creation and you interpret Genesis literally, it doesn't mean a literal interpretation of Genesis is the doctrine of Creation. The Doctrine of Creation is that God created everything, it does not mean taking the story in Genesis literally. That is your understanding of how God created, not the fact God created everything whether Genesis describes it literally or not.

This is a bait and switch. First you accuse me of conflating the Nicene Creed. I didn't, I just said that based on the first three stanzas you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian. Then because it does not mention 24 hour days I must be wrong. If you want to talk about what 'day' means in the Hebrew of Genesis 1 we can, if you want to talk about what the Nicene Creed says and what it means we can. What you doing is conflating the Nicene Creed and you new private interpretation of what 'day' means. Clearly it means 24 hours, the Nicene Creed doesn't mention it because everyone was in agreement that a day was 24 hours.​

 

[Assyrian]

See, that's much better.

Unfortunately you still haven't responded to the point I made.

You seem to think that because Galileo was right and Rome was wrong that means the miracle didn't happen.

Nope it still sound pretty miraculous to me. Why not deal with the point I actually make, that science showed their interpretation was wrong, not make up points you imagine I seem to believe.

That's simply not the case, in fact, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it. All it says is the sun stood still, what the miracle actually was is an open question, not that you would ever admit it. That's all there is and Rome has been wrong about a lot of things, so what?

Their literal interpretation didn't leave what the miracle was open to question. The text says the sun stopped, they believed the sun literally stopped. You are reading your interpretation back into what the church believed before Galileo, your interpretation that takes account of your understanding from science that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, What you need to do is understand what they believed, how the plain text appeared to anybody reading it before we learned that it is the earth that rotates. They took the text at face value, and when science showed the sun wasn't moving across the sky, they needed to find a new interpretation that didn't contradict science.

Don't you realize astronomers believed the same thing. Your arguing in circles, this is getting tiresome.

I am not arguing in circles. You are evading the problems by saying astronomers believed the same thing, I am simply bringing you back to the issue you still need to address.

Private interpretation is a slogan Catholics use against Protestant. Unless come up with a coherent basis for using it, which you haven't so far, it is simply empty rhetoric, and it is pretty odd coming from a protestant, especially one who keeps using wild private interpretations like your Bible dictionary pick and mix.

You brought up Aquinas and how he was opposed to creation thought or some such. The truth is he was opposed to people who want to take a verse of Scripture and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. that's what a private interpretation is,

You don't seem to have addressed my point.

this is where it comes from: Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. (1Peter 1:20)

Which isn't about us trying to understand the prophecy, it is saying the prophet didn't make the prophecy up himself.

For the third and final time the literal interpretation has not change. Why are you being so dense about this, it's still interpreted literally.

'Still interpreted literally' is not the same as 'the literal interpretation has not changed'. The interpretation has changed. In the old interpretation the sun was actually moving across the sky and actually stopped at Joshua's command. Some new interpretations like language of appearance might be a form of literal, though I doubt it in this case, Joshua seems to have meant what he said. Others like accommodation are far removed from literalism, since the plain meaning of the text is simply a means to convey the deeper aspects of the message rather than being literally true themselves.

But whether the new interpretation is literal or not, the old literal interpretation was wrong. The sun did not stop moving. And because science showed the old interpretation was wrong, the church had to come up with a new interpretation.

Your not really saying anything.

I showed you were wrong and you couldn't address it.

There's nothing to address, you have clarified a single point of the exposition, the translation or the proper interpretation. You just keep chanting how the 'church' was wrong and their interpretation was wrong so we must be wrong about Genesis 1. It's nonsense. You haven't made a point.

You are still wriggling. Science showed the church's interpretation was wrong, and the only response you can make is denial or coming up with a different interpretation from the one the church had before Galileo and pretending it is the same. When science showed the interpretation was wrong the church went back to the bible and changed their interpretation of the passage. Until you can admit the church changed their interpretation because science showed they were wrong, or demonstrate that they didn't actually change their interpretation, you are in no position to comment on whether the church should change an interpretation of Genesis that has also been contradicted by science.

They didn't spend any time on this passage, the church fathers were more concerned about actual theological issues.

Have you read what they say about it?

Creation is both literal and essential doctrine.

You are also mixing up literal with true and mixing up the doctrine of Creation with the creation narrative in Genesis 1. I wish you would actually understand the difference.

Events are real, but they are not literal because they are not words or literature. They simply happened or didn't happen. God creating the heaven and the earth happened, is real. It is not 'literal'. Saying "God created the heavens and the earth" is literal, God actually creating them isn't.

The doctrine of creation which we see in the Nicene Creed "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen..." and "Through him all things were made." is a description in words of the events, they can be literal, or non literal. In the case of the doctrine, that God really is the maker of all things, this is both true and literal. God really did make all things and made them all through his son Jesus Christ. The Doctrine of Creation doesn't say how God made them it, it simply said that He did make them all.

Then we have the description of Creation in the Genesis narratives. That is a different description of Creation to the Doctrine of Creation in the Nicene Creed. Since real events can have both literal descriptions (like the crucifixion narratives) and non literal (the parable of the Good Shepherd), and Genesis is a different description of Creation to the Doctrine of Creation we read in the Nicene Creed, there is no contradiction between interpreting Genesis non literally while holding the Creation to be real and the Doctrine of Creation to be true and the description in the Nicene Creed literal.

Canon balls? Seriously? The dawn of the Scientific Revolution with the 30 years war and the Civil war in England looming just over the horizon. You bring up cannon balls and that's it. While it's true that a new kind of math, a science that was focused the movement of objects had a foundational concept. It was called the Y squared, it would eventually develop into Newton's theory of gravity, and calculus, and well...science as we know it today. This was a new science emerging, not unlike the emergence of genetics in the 21st century.

Do you have any response other than an expression of credulity? Galileo's work on parabolic trajectories, The Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences predated Newton's Principia by 50 years. Galileo's work completely overthrew Aristotle view of 'impetus'. The thirty years war along with all the wars between Italian city states meant Galileo's ability to to plot cannon ball trajectories was very much in demand. Contradicting Aristotle wasn't a problem for church or state.

I didn't misunderstand anything. He was put on trial for contradicting Aristotle not Joshua 10:13. The Scriptures were brought up later but the only thing to come of the Inquisition of Galileo was that book was banned. You know, that book you never read that spends so much time on Aristotelian mechanics.

You keep bringing up the fact I haven't read it as though it means something. What point am I missing? Do I need to read through the book to realise it talks about Aristotelian mechanics? I know that. But it wasn't because It contradicted Aristole that it was banned. It was banned because it contradicted scripture and doctrine. You would realise that if you read the trial verdict and the issues Cardinal Bellarmine brought up thirty years before that the verdict refers to. The Catholic church didn't have a theological problem with Galileo contradicting Aristotle, if they had they would have banned his Discourses on Two New Sciences, and the thirty years war would have been over a lot sooner.

It's not optional, when it says 'days' it means 'days' unless there is some special reason for it not to, usually in the immediate context.

You have said you don't think literal days are required and distinguish between taking the days literally and 'rejecting God as creator'.

Mark: Not taking the 'days' of Genesis literally is one thing but rejecting God as Creator is simple unbelief.
Mark: Now I've conceded that literal 24 hour days are not actually required even though that's exactly what it says.
​

I'll ask you again. How is the literal reading of Genesis 'essential doctrine' when the literal days aren't essential?

It says God created the heavens and the earth, that's word for word out of Genesis and frankly, it would be the height of ignorance to argue that a doctrine concerning creation is unrelated to Genesis 1. Genesis is always interpreted literally, unless you have some justification for changing the actual meaning. Your just doing it because you don't believe what it says, not because it's hard to understand what's written there.

The doctrine of Creation is obviously related to Genesis 1, what is not so obvious is that it is related to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, especially when we have had church fathers, scripture scholars and theologians through the ages who interpreted Genesis 1 figuratively. The Nicene Creed was written to address controversies like Arianism, if the figurative interpretation of Genesis 1 was a problem, and it predated the Nicene Creed, why didn't the Creed specify Genesis had to be interpreted literally? Interestingly the Nicene Creed isn't word for word out of Genesis, it changes creator and created to maker and made. They don't seem to have shared your insistence that God created everything ex nihilo, the important point was that God made everything, however he may have made it all.

No, you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian. No one said you have to be YEC or OEC, no one said you have to take the 'days' in Genesis 1 literally, even though they are literal days. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian and you know it. Creation isn't just some passing doctrine that is a matter of personal preference or private interpretation. It's an article of faith and to deny creation is to deny the faith. I didn't say that, St. Thomas Aquinas did and have all Christians down through the ages.

You say you don't have to take the day literally to be a creationist, but do you have to interpret Genesis 1 literally? Aquinas didn't, and since it was a matter where church fathers had different opinion, it was open to 'private interpretation' - unlike Joshua's miracle where the testimony of the church fathers was that the sun really stopped. You want to include young earth creationist and old earth creationist, but exclude TEs who are evolutionary creationists. But you don't have any basis from Aquinas, the church fathers or the creeds

Now Theistic Evolutionists think they can come along and just redefine everything they don't believe. It doesn't work that way.

You mean like the church did after Galileo?

Joshua is still interpreted literally, what is wrong with you?

The issue isn't literal or non literal, it is changing your interpretation when science shows your old interpretation is wrong. Then you go back to scripture and find the best way to understand the passage that isn't contradicted by science. There is nothing that says the interpretation has to be literal, especially when there have been figurative interpretations of Genesis throughout church history.

Yes I know. This is a bait and switch. First you accuse me of conflating the Nicene Creed.

No I didn't, I said the Nicene Creed didn't help you conflation of creationism and the literal interpretation of Genesis, with the Doctrine of Creation

I didn't, I just said that based on the first three stanzas you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian.

And by creationist you mean YECs and OECs who take Genesis literally (apart from the days), not creationist as some one who believes God created everything

Then because it does not mention 24 hour days I must be wrong.

You are wrong because there is nothing in the Nicene Creed about interpreting Genesis literally, not the length of days, not the order of creation, or how God did it, nothing.

If you want to talk about what 'day' means in the Hebrew of Genesis 1 we can, if you want to talk about what the Nicene Creed says and what it means we can. What you doing is conflating the Nicene Creed and you new private interpretation of what 'day' means. Clearly it means 24 hours, the Nicene Creed doesn't mention it because everyone was in agreement that a day was 24 hours.

No, I never claimed the Nicene Creed taught my interpretation of Genesis either. The Nicene Creed leaves it open to everybody who simply believes God made heaven and earth and everything that exists, however they may think God did it or however they interpret Genesis, whether classical literalists or classical figurative instantaneous creation creationists from before modern geology and biology or today's TEs, YECs, OECs. We all believe God created everything that exists. You are the one trying to read a literal interpretation of Genesis into the doctrine of Creation when literalism and the literal interpretation of Genesis was never a doctrine of the church.

 

[Aman777]

Unfortunately you still haven't responded to the point I made.

Nope it still sound pretty miraculous to me. Why not deal with the point I actually make, that science showed their interpretation was wrong, not make up points you imagine I seem to believe.

Their literal interpretation didn't leave what the miracle was open to question. The text says the sun stopped, they believed the sun literally stopped.

Dear Readers, The Sun LITERALLY stopped in the eyes of the people who saw it stand still. It is easily explained since the LORD is Brighter than the Noonday Sun. Acts 22 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Jesus appeared to Saul and blinded him, showing that it would be easy for Him to do the SAME thing in the Old Testament. God's Holy Word is the Truth, literally, figuratively, and in every other way. Those who cannot see this cannot understand Scripture. Science has not and cannot refute God's Truth. The problem lies in the faulty interpretations of mortal men.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Calminian]

What foolishness. Science has never shown the Bible to be wrong. Science is the study of the natural world. It can make no claim about the actions of the supernatural. If you don't know this, then you know nothing about science.

When God through Joshua made the sun stand still in the sky for a say, there are two possibilities. 1. God suspended time for a day. He created it, and He can suspend it. 2. God froze the rotation of the earth for a day. He created it. He can spin it backward tomorrow if He wants too. There are no limitations on the Creator; certainly not natural law which He also created. Of the 333 miracles in the Bible, what they have in common is that none of them are scientifically possible. If they were, they wouldn't be miracles. Miracles show the power of God. Card tricks do not. God is glorified by doing the impossible. This actually validates what is written. Science doesn't disprove any of it.

You really need to get a better understanding about the definition and limitations of science if you think you can use it to disprove the word of God. It might help to learn what a miracle is, too. You clearly have a hard time with this.

John Shelby Spong just wrote an article in the Huffington Post.

Gospel of John: What Everyone Should Know About The Fourth Gospel

It's filled with this kind of reasoning. In a word it is unbelief. God reveals and men then are faced with a choice. They can reinterpret as Spong does (he claims to be a believer) or you can trust the straightforward message. We can follow the steps of our father Abraham, or trust in our own understanding. The battle with many is not intellectual but spiritual.

 

[sdowney717]

Jesus says the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
The seventh day is a day of rest.
As an example to man, God worked 6 days, resting on the 7th day.

Exodus 20:11
New King James Version (NKJV)
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Exodus 35:2
New King James Version (NKJV)
2 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Now the new heavens and and new earth still to come, God creates in a moment, not taking 6 days to rest on a 7th day.

That is because in this new creation, man will have entered into His rest. And will not need to be working for 6 days anymore.

Mark 2:27
New King James Version (NKJV)
27 And He said to them, &#8220;The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

The promise of entering into His rest exists for us now and in the future.

Hebrews 4
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Promise of Rest

4 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them,[a] not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said:

&#8220;So I swore in My wrath,
&#8216;They shall not enter My rest,&#8217;&#8221;
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: &#8220;And God rested on the seventh day from all His works&#8221;; [c] 5 and again in this place: &#8220;They shall not enter My rest.&#8221;[d]

6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, &#8220;Today,&#8221; after such a long time, as it has been said:

&#8220;Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.&#8221;[e]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

Our works are like filthy rags, God has prepared works for us to do beforehand.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

[KWCrazy]

John Shelby Spong just wrote an article in the Huffington Post.

Yes, it's garbage.

It includes statements such as: "Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel's word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead."

 

[Messy]

If the word for day in genesis is "Yom," and Yom carries a broader meaning than "day" in the strict 24 hour sense, but rather means something like 'a period of time,' then could it be that creation did not take place in a conventional week?

In Christ

No, I think only the beginning was different.
Every day it had been evening and morning. So in the evening of day one He should have created the heaven and the earth and in the morning the light. Day 1 Sabbath starts on friday evening.
I think He created heaven and earth not when it was dark, because He is Light and in Him is no darkness. So He must have created it on day 0, which doesn't exist and could have been billions of years.
2 Peter 3:
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That's about day 0, the morning before the first evening, the beginning, not all days.
It says there was one morning and one evening in each of those days...
so if they were 1000 years long, then there was a 500 year night when everything froze us, and plants died from lack of light, etc..

the 'morning and evening' if not literal, are unnecessary... and are only necessary if the Lord was wanting to make sure we knew they were normal days...