YECists attempt to dig into sheol

[jereth]

In several recent threads we've seen YECists argue passionately that the Bible is inerrant about structure of our Cosmos, in addition to being inerrant about doctrine, theology and morality.

For example:

I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Whatever borderline issues remain a mystery but it doesn't invalidate them. We just don't understand them. How could we understand the mind of God?

Some of the Evolutionists here openly blow off the Bible as the fruit of ignorant people. So, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says.

So you really, truly, believe that the Bible teaches us an inerrant picture of the Cosmos? Then surely you must accept that there is a large cavern beneath the earth, called sheol, where the spirits of dead people go. You have no choice.

So here is a challenge: to prove your absolute trust in the Bible's inerrancy, why don't you get out your shovels and start digging until you find sheol? Of course, none of you is actually going to do this. You know as well as we do that sheol is part of the ancient hebrew mythological picture of the universe.

Why then do you insist that the "firmament" and "waters above the heavens" of Genesis 1 are part of reality, rather than mythology? Aren't you being very inconsistent here? Either the Bible is inerrant about cosmology (so sheol is a real place) or it is not inerrant (and thus Genesis 1 cannot possibly be a historical story).


Genesis 37:35
All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted and said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." Thus his father wept for him.

Numbers 16:33
So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.

1 Samuel 2:6
The LORD kills and brings to life;he brings down to Sheol and raises up

1 Kings 2:6
Act therefore according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace.

Job 7:9
As the cloud fades and vanishes,so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up;

Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of you;in Sheol who will give you praise?

Psalm 49:14
Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol;Death shall be their shepherd,and the upright shall rule over them in the morning.Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.

Psalm 139:8
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!

Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Isaiah 38:10
I said, In the middle of my days I must depart;I am consigned to the gates of Sheolfor the rest of my years.

Ezekiel 32:27
And they do not lie with the mighty, the fallen from among the uncircumcised, who went down to Sheol with their weapons of war, whose swords were laid under their heads, and whose iniquities are upon their bones; for the terror of the mighty men was in the land of the living.

Hosea 13:14
Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?Shall I redeem them from Death?O Death, where are your plagues?O Sheol, where is your sting?

Amos 9:2
"If they dig into Sheol,from there shall my hand take them;if they climb up to heaven,from there I will bring them down.

 

[shernren]

And note that in almost all of these references, sheol is directly located as being "downwards", or is contrasted with heaven being located "upwards". Thus Scripture gives a clear geographical location for sheol: it is at the center of the earth.

While we're at it, when was sheol created? Or wasn't it created?

 

[jereth]

And note that in almost all of these references, sheol is directly located as being "downwards", or is contrasted with heaven being located "upwards". Thus Scripture gives a clear geographical location for sheol: it is at the center of the earth.

I take it this means heaven is an enormous sphere surrounding the entire universe? Gosh, heaven must be a very big place.

Surface area of heaven's floor = 4 x pi x [radius of universe]^2

 

[vossler]

So here is a challenge: to prove your absolute trust in the Bible's inerrancy, why don't you get out your shovels and start digging until you find sheol? Of course, none of you is actually going to do this. You know as well as we do that sheol is part of the ancient hebrew mythological picture of the universe.

Unlike most evolutionists, I don't need to prove my trust in the Bible's inerrancy. I believe!

 

[Mallon]

Unlike most evolutionists, I don't need to prove my trust in the Bible's inerrancy. I believe!

I respect the fact that when the sky is blue, you take it on faith that it is red "because the Bible says so", so to speak. I can live with that.
What I don't respect are creationists who insist on playing apologetics and twisting science to support their interpretation of the Bible. Science does not support the cosmology of the early Hebrews, so it ticks me off when people pretend it does.
The issue of faith vs. science only arises when we attempt to support one with the other. If we use science to support our faith, then we do not have faith since faith is defined as believing in what is unseen. If we use faith to support our science, then we do not have science since science is only able to test the observable.

 

[vossler]

What I don't respect are creationists who insist on playing apologetics and twisting science to support their interpretation of the Bible. Science does not support the cosmology of the early Hebrews, so it ticks me off when people pretend it does.

I don't argue specific scientific matters so I'll abstain from that line of thinking. I will say that when anything, whether science or otherwise, isn't supported within or contradicts the Bible then it is science or whatever one is discussing that requires an adjustment, not the Bible.

The issue of faith vs. science only arises when we attempt to support one with the other. If we use science to support our faith, then we do not have faith since faith is defined as believing in what is unseen. If we use faith to support our science, then we do not have science since science is only able to test the observable.

Good points! I don't see this as a battle of faith vs. science, I see it as a battle of science vs. the Bible. My faith will never to subjected to or held hostage by evolution, science, or anything else man derived and centered. Yet why is it when science contradicts the truth of the Bible do some entertain it as a new and better truth?

 

[CCWoody]

So you really, truly, believe that the Bible teaches us an inerrant picture of the Cosmos?

The Bible is full of error?? Interesting. Why trust ANYTHING in a Bible that is full of error, contains "hebrew mythology" as you say, etc? After all, it might just be full of error about everything else, including salvation. Why trust a God who cannot provide us with a book that is not full of error? Obviously, he has attempted communication, but seems unable to speak clearly.

As far as your citations about Sheol, please provide relevant definitons on the meaning of this Hebrew word so that it can be discussed.

Thanks,...

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Mallon]

I will say that when anything, whether science or otherwise, isn't supported within or contradicts the Bible then it is science or whatever one is discussing that requires an adjustment, not the Bible.

I don't think we need to adjust either. I would argue that the only thing that needs adjusting is our perspective on the Bible, with an understanding of who's perspective the Scriptures were written from.

My faith will never to subjected to or held hostage by evolution, science, or anything else man derived and centered.

I see science as a gift from God, used to help us to understand the world He has blessed us with.

Yet why is it when science contradicts the truth of the Bible do some entertain it as a new and better truth?

You're just as guilty as the rest of us, if you believe the earth to be a sphere, the atmosphere to be gaseous, and the sun to be at the centre of our solar system.

 

[Willtor]

Sun at the center of the solar system, not the galaxy.

 

[nickspacek]

This article is an interesting read:
www .trueorigin. org/flatearth01.asp
(I can't post links so you'll have to get rid of the spaces)

You're just as guilty as the rest of us, if you believe the earth to be a sphere, the atmosphere to be gaseous, and the sun to be at the centre of our galaxy.

 

[vossler]

I don't think we need to adjust either. I would argue that the only thing that needs adjusting is our perspective on the Bible, with an understanding of who's perspective the Scriptures were written from.

If our perspective needs adjusting for something as simple as Genesis, I'd hate to imagine what kind of perspective adjustments we'll make for the rest of the Bible.

I see science as a gift from God, used to help us to understand the world He has blessed us with.

You can see it anyway you wish, the bottom line is God never saw it that way. All the gifts He gave us are clearly identified within His Word.

You're just as guilty as the rest of us, if you believe the earth to be a sphere, the atmosphere to be gaseous, and the sun to be at the centre of our galaxy.

Yet none of those things directly contradict the Bible like evolution does.

 

[Mallon]

This article is an interesting read:
www .trueorigin. org/flatearth01.asp
(I can't post links so you'll have to get rid of the spaces)

Seen it. But if you don't believe the Bible describes the earth as being flat, then, as the creationists say, "you're not taking God at His word".

 

[Mallon]

If our perspective needs adjusting for something as simple as Genesis, I'd hate to imagine what kind of perspective adjustments we'll make for the rest of the Bible.

You can cross that bridge when you get to it. So far, I haven't come across any issues amongst TE re: the veracity of the rest of the Bible. Either way, your statement is borderline non-sequitur.

You can see it anyway you wish, the bottom line is God never saw it that way. All the gifts He gave us are clearly identified within His Word.

Care to back that up?

Yet none of those things directly contradict the Bible like evolution does.

1 Samuel 2:8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."

I beg to differ.

 

[vossler]

You can cross that bridge when you get to it. So far, I haven't come across any issues amongst TE re: the veracity of the rest of the Bible. Either way, your statement is borderline non-sequitur.

Well if the literal days of creation can be changed then other changes can creep in. Just to mention a few, Adam & Eve, Abraham, Moses, etc. How many of these were real people? According to TEs, none, some, or all. How about the flood?

Care to back that up?

1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 are but two areas where God describes His gifts to us, neither include science.

1 Samuel 2:8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."

I beg to differ.

Clearly a figurative verse that is easy to understand for most people to be just that.

 

[Mallon]

1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 are but two areas where God describes His gifts to us, neither include science.

Are they exhaustive, all-inclusive lists of God's blessings to us? Is the polio vaccine listed on there? Probably not, seeing as how it had not yet been invented (and nor had the scientific method, at that point).

Clearly a figurative verse that is easy to understand for most people to be just that.

Indeed. Knowing what we know, it would be silly to believe otherwise, right? Similarly, TEs feel the creation account was meant to convey the truth of God's creative powers through figurative means.

 

[PETE_]

When we cannot trace God's hand, we can trust His heart.

 

[vossler]

Are they exhaustive, all-inclusive lists of God's blessings to us? Is the polio vaccine listed on there? Probably not, seeing as how it had not yet been invented (and nor had the scientific method, at that point).

Nothing about what God has told us is exhaustive. Are you admitting that the polio vaccine was a gift from God?

Indeed. Knowing what we know, it would be silly to believe otherwise, right?

Knowing what people have always known, yes!

Similarly, TEs feel the creation account was meant to convey the truth of God's creative powers through figurative means.

As you are entitled to believe! The operative word here being "feel." I try not to base my beliefs upon my feelings, they're usually not very accurate or a good indicator of truth.

 

[Mallon]

Nothing about what God has told us is exhaustive. Are you admitting that the polio vaccine was a gift from God?

Of course! Every good thing is a gift from God! Including science.

Knowing what people have always known, yes!

Thing is: we didn't always know the earth was round. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn't believe this, which is why they wrote about it having four corners and resting on pillars.

As you are entitled to believe! The operative word here being "feel." I try not to base my beliefs upon my feelings, they're usually not very accurate or a good indicator of truth.

Oy ve. You were so close to following my thought processes through 'til the end, but you gave up here!

 

[vossler]

Of course! Every good thing is a gift from God! Including science.

That's good to hear! Does that also mean that you believe He should receive the glory for it?

Thing is: we didn't always know the earth was round. The ancient Hebrews certainly didn't believe this, which is why they wrote about it having four corners and resting on pillars.

Whether the Hebrews thought the earth was flat, round or a sphere doesn't in any way change the meaning of this scripture, that is my point.

Oy ve. You were so close to following my thought processes through 'til the end, but you gave up here!

I'll try harder next time.

 

[Mallon]

That's good to hear! Does that also mean that you believe He should receive the glory for it?

Yes. Where are you going with this?

Whether the Hebrews thought the earth was flat, round or a sphere doesn't in any way change the meaning of this scripture, that is my point.

Exacly! Are you sure you're not a TE? Similarly, whether the Hebrews thought the earth was old, young, flat, or round doesn't change the meaning of the creation or Flood stories! I'm glad we could clear this up.