A question for Young Earth Creationists

[RealityCheck]

Secondly, Scripture appears to imply the earth is fixed, I'll grant you that, and science has proven, through observation, that it isn't. Yet this observation has had little effect on how I live my life, for all practical purposes the earth could be fixed and the sun revolve around it and that would have no effect on my existence. It doesn't change other Truths within Scripture or the entire history of mankind.

Science hasn't, through observation, proved that man evolved.

The evidence exists. If you choose not to see it, that's your choice.

The evidence also exists that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. There are people that choose not to accept this evidence.

The evidence also exists that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old. There are people who choose not to accept this evidence.

But in the end, the evidence is there, and it supports the theories that have come from that evidence. If you choose not to accept the theory, fine - but choosing not to accept the evidence is entirely different. If that is what you do, then you have to show that a) the evidence is wrong, or b) that the evidence indicates something other than the prevailing theory. Simply saying "that's not what the Bible says" does not constitute either A or B.


------

You state that whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun doesn't affect your daily life. I would contend that it does even if you don't realize it, but for now, I'd like to pose this question:

What difference does it make whether people were specially created 6000 years ago, or whether humans have evolved through millions of years of evolution? What difference does that make in your life?

 

[Mallon]

First of all I'm not telling anyone that they are insulting God.

Vossler, brother, whether you intend to or not, that is what you are doing when you say, "The insult, when it exists, is when man uses his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word." I assume, of course, that you are speaking of the theory of evolution, to which I and many others subscribe. You claim that such a belief is insulting to God, and yet you do not think that believing in a round earth is contrary to the Bible or insulting to God. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this position? I've clearly cited you Scripture that contradicts this belief. And I could cite more, if you like. That drawing up there that I posted is based solely on the Bible's description of the world. Every detail is based on Scripture. Yet this is not how you or most other creationists understand it to be. You know the world is round, that it revolves around the sun, and that it does NOT sit on pillars because of the science that contradicts the Bible. So, according to your own logic, our good Lord could be no more upset with TEists than with you for not taking His word "at face value".

Yet this observation has had little effect on how I live my life, for all practical purposes the earth could be fixed and the sun revolve around it and that would have no effect on my existence. It doesn't change other Truths within Scripture

Neither does evolution.

 

[vossler]

I know I've seen you post this before, I just forgot it when I was posting just now. My bad. I'll have to answer specifically to that.

Good, I was beginning to wonder if our past discussions were forgotten.

I think that evolution really isn't "man using his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word", on two counts. But first, can we establish that there really is a scientific interpretation of the evidence that can lead us to accept that evolution happened, the earth and universe is old, etc.? In other words, that the scientific phenomena can account for what we actually do see today, whether or not they actually happened. Of course, you may not agree with that. But let's take the easy way out and assume you do for now.

Without a doubt I do.

If you do, then evolution (etc.) ceases to be offensive the way you described it, on two counts. Firstly on a purely practical level, it is completely appropriate to make a scientific description of the world, even if it is only approximate. Science doesn't expect people to rise from the grave even though we know someone did just that. We don't expect people to float on water or burn it without some supernatural intervention. So it wouldn't really be wrong to say that "Given no supernatural intervention, we can account for this and that feature of the world by the fact that it is old." It is no different from our knowledge that given the normal order of things people stay dead and water doesn't burn.

Good points, at least when addressed to the secular world. However for me as a Christian I have extreme difficultly understanding how other Christians can so easily dismiss Scripture with scientific explanations.

On a deeper level, however, the question is whether or not we would have any good reason to doubt the scientific description of how everything came about. Is the Bible sufficient reason for us to doubt this scientific description of the world's creation? (Of course, this will strike you as doing things the wrong way around. I know.)

I'm glad you recognize that, it helps me to know you understand. Your question "Is the Bible sufficient reason for us to doubt this scientific description of the world's creation?" is the crux of the problem. I believe it is and it would appear that you don't. My question to you would be, what is your plumb line on which all truth is measured? To me the Bible is the source of truth in all matters of which it speaks, what this approach does is make all of life so much easier. I never have to ever wonder whether there is some other 'truth' out there that will also supercede the Bible. It just doesn't exist.

In the first place one must ask: if God wanted the Bible to supersede science why did He do such a bad job of it? The Bible tells us almost nothing about science and doesn't even give any clues. If God's revelation were really about the physical nature of the world one would expect His Chosen people to be the strongest scientists in the world; and yet Israel in the OT is really a technological midget being pushed around by the superpowers of its day. God used the Bible to show us what we would never have known on our own.

See this is where we divert. I don't believe He did a bad job of anything. The reason we think we do know so much is because our answers are based on insufficient knowledge that only appears sufficient because of our desperate hunger to know everything. Some things just weren't meant to be known.

Remember the story of the Irealites waiting on Moses while he met with God. It was only for 40 days that he was gone, yet they grew impatient and couldn't wait for his return so they made themselves an idol to worship. It's easy for me to see a parallel with evolution; we just can't accept not knowing and being in the dark so we come up with our own reality.

"But shouldn't we be asking if science is sufficient reason for us to doubt the Bible's description of creation, instead of the other way 'round?" To some, of course, the descriptions of Genesis 1 and 2 seem entirely metaphorical right from the start. The imageries of chaos waters, tohu-bohu, the covenant of the Great King etc. are quite apparent; for some, the text itself appears metaphorical before dealing with a shred of science. But not everybody is an ANE-culture geek ... so my argument would be that Scripture does not prescribe science because Scripture assumes that we already know science. (Okay, Scripture can't really do anything, but I am referring to the litle I think I know of God's intentions in writing it. For me, if God assumed that we already knew science before coming to the Scriptures, it is as good as saying the Scripture assumes that we already know science. Horrendous theology, but it makes for easier writing.)

Personally I could care less if we evolved through a lengthy process supervised by God. Like many have said, this still wouldn't minimize God and His creative abilities. It may not be as cool and powerful as divine fiat, but it has some of its own virtues too. The critical element for me is God said He did it in six days. Those days, in case someone were confused, are further identified by number, evenings and mornings. That is very compelling for me and for someone else to tell me it is a metaphor and not true they would have to provide a very strong biblical case to support it. What I'm being asked to do is accept a theory, that I've never seen observational proof of, over the very Word of God.

We encounter the world before we encounter the Bible, and we know what the Bible is saying precisely because it refers to things in the world. "The Promised Land flows with milk and honey" would hardly have any meaning if we did not know first what milk and honey was! And more importantly, the passage never tells us what milk and honey is: it assumes that we know, and trusts us to draw the right conclusion. When Jesus walks on water, we are trusted to know that it is a miracle (interestingly, the fact that water is an image of chaos in the OT doesn't enter people's minds when they read this. Jesus wasn't just miracle-surfing, He was employing imagery that any Jew would have recognized as imagery of creation.) because we are supposed to know that people sink in water.

We know that milk and honey are good, very good.

I'm glad you recognize the symbolism of water. Water has, for the Jews, always been associated with Hades. They had a definite fear of it. For us, the simple fact that He was walking over a form of death provides a realistic understanding also, yet not nearly as complete as it was to them at the time. An example where we can glean the truth but just a weaker rendition of it. Isn't God awesome!

What then, of Genesis 1? Does Genesis 1 assume that we already know how the universe was formed? I think the situation is slightly different and in Genesis 1 how the universe was formed is irrelevant.

Good, I agree 100%!

If you look carefully, there are no "hows". God speaks and it is done; there is no hint of any "process" whatsoever. I take this to mean (again, without any reference to science) that God is not cataloguing His actions, but His creations. "You see the light? I made it. You see the darkness? I made it. You see the sea? ... " God is referring to our present reality, with stars and trees and all.

Without a doubt I agree, except He did catalog the time-frame under which He did it.

I believe that God wasn't going to bother about telling us the how because He knew we'd find out eventually and we'd be spot on. But He worried a lot about the why; right from the start everybody was getting it wrong worshipping the Sun and all. And that is what Genesis 1 is about: not how God created, but why.

If this were true then why did He make it very clear about it taking 6 full days?

And so I don't think that the sciences you have in mind (evolution, etc.) really supersede the Scriptures, if the Scriptures themselves already have essentially nothing to say on the matter. As we've seen, Scripture seems to essentially leave the job of describing the universe to us; what it does is to take up all those descriptions (for which it leaves us responsible) and piece them together into an authoritative description of God.

But I've already shown you how they do have something to say on the matter. As far as the rest, well yes it is left to us to describe the universe and piece it together into an authoritative description of God, as you so nicely put it. The thing is Scripture should be our plumb line, not science.

(Brownie points for not mentioning geocentrism or a flat earth anywhere!)

Noted

 

[RealityCheck]

We know that milk and honey are good, very good.

The lactose intolerant and children under 1 would disagree strongly with you on this.

 

[RealityCheck]

Water has, for the Jews, always been associated with Hades.

Really. Do you have scripture to back this up?

 

[vossler]

Vossler, brother, whether you intend to or not, that is what you are doing when you say, "The insult, when it exists, is when man uses his reasoning combined with science to supercede God and His Word." I assume, of course, that you are speaking of the theory of evolution, to which I and many others subscribe.

Mallon, let me ask you a kind of rhetorical question, if I were to say that Jesus didn't, after three days, rise from the dead, but that was just a metaphor and a means for God to fulfill prophecy; that there was no proof of Jesus, the son of God, being in the body of Christ at the time of death, you and most everyone here would dispute those findings. I would go on to state that He actually never died but that His spirit left the body before death and watched the body died while sitting at the right hand of the father. Then three days later entered the body and restored it to walk amoung the people again. Of course this would be considered blasphemy and I would be justly ridiculed for believing something like that. For me to say that when God said He created everything in 6 days, He wasn't telling the truth but that He did so over 14.5 billion years and man was developed into the image of God, well I hope you can see how that might be considered insulting or at the very least troubling. If you wish for me to retract that statement, I don't mind, I will do so right now. Whether it was intended to be insulting or not doesn't change anything, it's a little bit like my daughter telling me that she 'didn't mean it' when she said X; in her mind that somehow absolved her from the responsibility of her actions. Maybe others would agree, not me.

You claim that such a belief is insulting to God, and yet you do not think that believing in a round earth is contrary to the Bible or insulting to God. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this position? I've clearly cited you Scripture that contradicts this belief. And I could cite more, if you like. That drawing up there that I posted is based solely on the Bible's description of the world. Every detail is based on Scripture. Yet this is not how you or most other creationists understand it to be. You know the world is round, that it revolves around the sun, and that it does NOT sit on pillars because of the science that contradicts the Bible. So, according to your own logic, our good Lord could be no more upset with TEists than with you for not taking His word "at face value".

O.K. I was going to give you the leeway on those Scriptures to make your point, but now that you wish to keep pointing to them I think it behooves us to take a look at them.

Job 9:6

who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;

Job 26:11

The pillars of heaven tremble and are astounded at his rebuke.

Psalm 75:3

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants,
it is I who keep steady its pillars.

1 Samuel 2:8

He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's,
and on them he has set the world.

What I see are a lot clear metaphors, nothing so solid that in anyway one must interpret this literally as you would think YECs should. Even if you wish to carry this to an extreme, after the facts of science proved otherwise Scripture is still true. These words still mean what God intended for them to mean. The point being, meaning didn't change, just the means used.

 

[RealityCheck]

Then why, Vossler, can you accept "pillars of the earth" to be purely symbolic metaphor and not a factual description of reality, but cannot accept Adam to be a metaphorical figure, and not genuinely historical?

How do YOU know the difference between historical fact and metaphorical symbolism in the Bible?

 

[vossler]

Really. Do you have scripture to back this up?

In the story of where Jesus healed the demon possessed man in Luke 8: 26-39 verse 31 states:

And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss.

This was in reference to the man not wanting to be cast into the lake (Galilee) because it was considered a place of confinement for evil spirits and for Satan.

Revelation 9 further expounds on the Abyss where it considered a subterranean abode of demonic hordes.

 

[RealityCheck]

In the story of where Jesus healed the demon possessed man in Luke 8: 26-39 verse 31 states:

And they begged him not to command them to depart into the abyss.

This was in reference to the man not wanting to be cast into the lake (Galilee) because it was considered a place of confinement for evil spirits and for Satan.

Revelation 9 further expounds on the Abyss where it considered a subterranean abode of demonic hordes.

But where do you come up with the association between abyss and water? After all, the demons begged Jesus not to send them to the abyss, but they asked instead to be allowed to enter a herd of swine, and Jesus let them. The demons then drove the swine into the lake.

I really don't see how you get water being equated with Hades in Jewish belief.

 

[vossler]

Then why, Vossler, can you accept "pillars of the earth" to be purely symbolic metaphor and not a factual description of reality, but cannot accept Adam to be a metaphorical figure, and not genuinely historical?

How do YOU know the difference between historical fact and metaphorical symbolism in the Bible?

I believe Adam was both a historical person and a symbolic figure. To me, to think otherwise is foolishness.

I'm by no means alone in believing this. I'm also not looking to get into an argument about it. This is so clear cut and simple for me that I find arguing about it to be totally fruitless. If you and others wish to believe otherwise, please feel free to do so, I will not argue against it, at least not here where it would derail this thread.

 

[vossler]

But where do you come up with the association between abyss and water? After all, the demons begged Jesus not to send them to the abyss, but they asked instead to be allowed to enter a herd of swine, and Jesus let them. The demons then drove the swine into the lake.

I really don't see how you get water being equated with Hades in Jewish belief.

They were standing on a cliff over Galilee when this conversation took place. What other abyss could they be referring to?

I don't have time to get into a study on this subject, but suffice it to say that I've taken part in a week long study that covered this topic and it was made very clear to me, where before I was ignorant.

 

[RealityCheck]

They were standing on a cliff over Galilee when this conversation took place. What other abyss could they be referring to?

I don't have time to get into a study on this subject, but suffice it to say that I've taken part in a week long study that covered this topic and it was made very clear to me, where before I was ignorant.

Well, if the Lake of Galilee is the "abyss" how come so many Jewish fishermen routinely went fishing there?

 

[vossler]

Well, if the Lake of Galilee is the "abyss" how come so many Jewish fishermen routinely went fishing there?

Why do so many people today go to into caves to mine coal when there is such danger? There was a living to be made that's why. Besides, not everyone believed this, it was likened as to a superstition more than anything else.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, let me ask you a kind of rhetorical question, if I were to say that Jesus didn't, after three days, rise from the dead, but that was just a metaphor and a means for God to fulfill prophecy; that there was no proof of Jesus, the son of God, being in the body of Christ at the time of death, you and most everyone here would dispute those findings. I would go on to state that He actually never died but that His spirit left the body before death and watched the body died while sitting at the right hand of the father. Then three days later entered the body and restored it to walk amoung the people again. Of course this would be considered blasphemy and I would be justly ridiculed for believing something like that. For me to say that when God said He created everything in 6 days, He wasn't telling the truth but that He did so over 14.5 billion years and man was developed into the image of God, well I hope you can see how that might be considered insulting or at the very least troubling.

I won't deny for a minute that switching over to a TE worldview is troubling... at first. It's troubling anytime someone goes through a mid-faith crisis. I'm no exception, but I know I came out the other side a stronger believer than ever.
That said, I don't think your parallelism re: Jesus' ascent holds for a few reasons. Number one being that our salvation does not depend on Genesis being literally true or not. In order for Christianity to mean anything, Jesus had to literally rise from the literal dead (some might even deny this, but I'm with you on this one). So in that sense, believing the Genesis account to be literal or mythical/metaphorical makes no difference to Christianity.
Secondly, if you want to take the Genesis account literally based on faith alone, then I have no problem with that. I can't touch you (though I may wonder why you don't take the rest of the Hebrew cosmology on faith). My problem is with those people and organizations that insist that science supports the Creation/Flood accounts, which it clearly does not, and then twist and pervert science to make their point. THIS I have problem with because it amounts to deceit, in the name of Christ, even.
So no, I don't see interpreting Genesis metaphorically as insulting to God. In fact, given the poetic nature of the Creation account ("And God said... And there was evening, and there was morning, the xth day"), I can't help but feel this is how God intended it to be.

What I see are a lot clear metaphors, nothing so solid that in anyway one must interpret this literally as you would think YECs should.

What is it about these passages that make the supposedly intended metaphore obvious to you? I believe I've asked this of you before, but never got a reply. How do you know these passages were intended metaphorically, but not the Creation account? Do you similarly feel that all passages referencing an immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18), flat Earth (Job 38:12-13, Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10) beneath a solid atmospheric "firmament" (Genesis 1:6-8), with windows (Gen 7:11-12, Gen 8:2, 2 Kings 7:2, Is. 24:18, Mal. 3:10) are metaphorical? Where are the passages that reference a sun-centred, round-earthed solar system that we see today? What is it about these passages that make them any more metaphorical than "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"?

 

[Mallon]

And for what it's worth, I agree with Vossler's point that the ancient Hebrews were essentially terrified of the deep waters. More here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf

 

[Jadis40]

Sigh...

Why does it seem like YECs try to say that only a literal 6 day, 24 hour interpretation (with a literal Adam and Eve with a literal garden and a literal talking snake and an earth that is only 6,000 years old) is the correct one, and if you don't accept their interpretation, than somehow you're compromising?

I have a degree in history...it's been my passion ever since I was in 5th grade. I also have a love of astronomy that goes back to when I was 5 years old. I read the Bible, and I read books on astronomy that presented information that the universe was 13.3 billion years old, while our planet dated to about 4.6 billion years, and our sun to about 5 billion years old. I accept Old Earth Creation over Young Earth because the fields of astronomy, geology, history and archeology (to name only a few) support these older dates. I just couldn't reconcile how/when Adam and Eve fit into the scheme of things. Never once did I think they existed at the same time of the dinosaurs. The simple truth (outside of Biblical revelation) is that the earth has a rich history which the Bible only barely addresses.

I quote the following from J. M. Roberts book The History of the World:

It seems likely that the earliest instance, based on the cultivation of primitive forms of millet and rice occurred in south-east Asia, somewhere about 10,000 BC.

also:

The first traces of the keeping of sheep come from northern Iraq in about 8,000 BC.

and:

What we can observe is a concentration of factors in the Near East which made it at one crucial moment immeasurably the most evident, active and important centre of new developments. It does not mean that similar individual developments may not occured elsewhere: pottery, it seems, was first produced in Japan in about 10,000 BC, and agriculture evolved in America perhaps as early as 5000 BC in complete isolation from the Old World.

and:

No crude divisions of chronology, therefore, will help in unravelling so interwoven a pattern. But its most important feature is clear enough: by 6000 or 5000 BC, there existed in at least one area of the Old World all the essential constituents of civilized life.

The ultimate question comes down to this: in light of the complexity of human history, should we throw out any findings that prove the existance of cultures long before any part of Genesis was recorded, that existed outside of the Fertile Cresent because they conflict directly with what the Bible presents -- including overwhelming historical, archeological and geological evidence that the global flood never happened, but there is ample evidence that localized flooding did happen between 12,000 BC and 5,000 BC because of glacier melt, but nothing on the scale of the story of Noah's Ark, where only 8 people survived.

It seems to me that YECs like to bury their heads in the Bible because they don't like dealing with anything that challenges what the Bible presents, no matter how factual it is.

 

[Calminian]

The evidence also exists that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. There are people that choose not to accept this evidence.

There is evidence the earth orbits the Sun. But the biblical writers had no concept of orbiting patterns. All movement is relative to one's point of reference. Therefore movement should always be described in accordance with point of reference. To keep using my favorite illustration, when you tell your kids to sit still in the back seat, this is understood relative to the cab of the car—not the road you are traveling on at 60 MPH—not the Sun we are orbiting around at high speeds. The biblical writers were absolutely correct saying the Sun stopped in Joshua—literally correct. The term sunset is literally correct also. The biblical writers were not geocentrists. They had no clue what orbits were. Nor were they speaking figuratively. They were speaking literally and they were correct.

The evidence also exists that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old. There are people who choose not to accept this evidence.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Orbiting patterns are observed in the present. The Big Bang is concluded from backward extrapolations based on the assumption that natural processes are the cause of the universe and have not been interrupted or added to in any way. The problem is the Bible testifies of a creation miracle—an amazingly vast and extensive miracle. Thus if the truth is to be sought, we need to employ an epistemology that allows for supernatural causes.

But in the end, the evidence is there, and it supports the theories that have come from that evidence. If you choose not to accept the theory, fine - but choosing not to accept the evidence is entirely different. If that is what you do, then you have to show that a) the evidence is wrong, or b) that the evidence indicates something other than the prevailing theory. Simply saying "that's not what the Bible says" does not constitute either A or B.

Actually that's not true if the Bible describes a supernatural event. The apologist does need to show the Bible is reliable to unbelievers, but in this forum, there should be no problem. Testimony in the Bible is evidence, and it not only trumps science on authoritative grounds, but on evidential grounds as well. Science cannot verify nor falsify miracles. Only testimony can do so. Science is limited to investigating natural testable repeatable processes. Miracles are not testable and repeatable by definition.

What difference does it make whether people were specially created 6000 years ago, or whether humans have evolved through millions of years of evolution? What difference does that make in your life?

The 6000 year issue is important because this is the time span revealed in the Bible. But more important are issues like the origin of death and suffering which only work in a six day framework.

 

[Melethiel]

The 6000 year issue is important because this is the time span revealed in the Bible. But more important are issues like the origin of death and suffering which only work in a six day framework.

Why do they only work in a six-day framework?

 

[Mallon]

There is evidence the earth orbits the Sun. But the biblical writers had no concept of orbiting patterns. All movement is relative to one's point of reference. Therefore movement should always be described in accordance with point of reference.

You seem to be admitting here that man's faulty understanding has peppered the Scriptures. If the passage you are alluding to was written from man's perspective and not God's, then why not extend the same principle to the Genesis Creation account? Why can it not be inspired by God, but written from man's retrospective?

 

[vossler]

I won't deny for a minute that switching over to a TE worldview is troubling... at first. It's troubling anytime someone goes through a mid-faith crisis. I'm no exception, but I know I came out the other side a stronger believer than ever.

I'm happy to hear you feel that way.

That said, I don't think your parallelism re: Jesus' ascent holds for a few reasons. Number one being that our salvation does not depend on Genesis being literally true or not. In order for Christianity to mean anything, Jesus had to literally rise from the literal dead (some might even deny this, but I'm with you on this one). So in that sense, believing the Genesis account to be literal or mythical/metaphorical makes no difference to Christianity.

I somewhat see your point except for the Genesis account not making any difference whether it was literal or metaphoric. I believe that Jesus redeemed us from the very real sin of Adam and not some metaphoric one. If it were metaphoric please tell me why did Jesus have to die? This would mean that sin always existed and God's creation never was very good. Plus it introduces a host of other interpretations.

Secondly, if you want to take the Genesis account literally based on faith alone, then I have no problem with that. I can't touch you (though I may wonder why you don't take the rest of the Hebrew cosmology on faith).

That's pretty much me, I support Genesis on faith alone. In addition I will support anyone else who will support Genesis via other means, therefore I also support AiG.

My problem is with those people and organizations that insist that science supports the Creation/Flood accounts, which it clearly does not, and then twist and pervert science to make their point. THIS I have problem with because it amounts to deceit, in the name of Christ, even.

As a non-scientist most everything I've seen AiG, ICR and similar organizations put out has been, to this layman at least, very convincing.

So no, I don't see interpreting Genesis metaphorically as insulting to God. In fact, given the poetic nature of the Creation account ("And God said... And there was evening, and there was morning, the xth day"), I can't help but feel this is how God intended it to be.

It's interesting that you see a poetic nature to Genesis.

What is it about these passages that make the supposedly intended metaphore obvious to you? I believe I've asked this of you before, but never got a reply. How do you know these passages were intended metaphorically, but not the Creation account? Do you similarly feel that all passages referencing an immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18), flat Earth (Job 38:12-13, Matthew 4:8, Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10) beneath a solid atmospheric "firmament" (Genesis 1:6-8), with windows (Gen 7:11-12, Gen 8:2, 2 Kings 7:2, Is. 24:18, Mal. 3:10) are metaphorical? Where are the passages that reference a sun-centred, round-earthed solar system that we see today? What is it about these passages that make them any more metaphorical than "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"?

I don't know but someone telling me that the earth is on pillars, well maybe it's my 21st Century mind but that isn't anything I could ever being conceived as literal. All the passages you cite don't for minute cause me to wonder whether they be metaphoric or not. It seems ridiculous to me to think otherwise, then again maybe that's just spiritual enlightenment. There are only one or two that don't fit into such a clear cut ease of interpretation.