Deceiving the Nations.

[vossler]

Isn't that what Luther thought Copernicus was doing?

I really don’t know.

Geocentrist interpretations stood the test of time until Copernicus came along.

Very few cared then and it’s no different today.

We do present viable alternatives, you refuse to see if they are viable or not and try to throw literalist rocks it from the outside. You have never show why the TE interpretations are non viable.

Are you serious? I only need one rock and it’s definitely not from the outside. Trillions of days vs. six days, one is in the Bible and the other isn’t. It doesn’t get much easier than that.

And yet you fallback position is that YEC is what the Holy Spirit showed you and you are humble and open to him, so it must be right.

Until someone can show otherwise of course. Do you submit to someone else’s opinion without support?

If someone produced solid evidence that Jesus' body was still in the grave Paul would have believed it. 1Cor 15:14 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. Peter and John would never have been convinced that Sunday morning if they had found evidence Jesus was still in the tomb. The bible say we can test it against reality. Your problem is you are trying to support an interpretation that has failed the test.

Paul didn’t have modern sciences at his disposal, you do. You’ve got a leg up on him and can trump him because he truly doesn’t know. You’ve got solid scientific evidence proving that His bones exist. What do you do?

History is when there are human witnesses. Why should the way God reveals the unseen future be different from the way he reveals the unseen past?

So science has become the modern day prophet?

I will repeat my questions:

1. How is being wrong about the bible teaching geocentrism any different from being wrong about the bible teaching a six day creation?
2. How does being wrong about either have a bearing on the truth of scripture?
3. And if the church would have been right to wait and see about Copernicus, why is it wrong to wait and see about geological ages and evolution?

1. In one the Scripture is direct and the other one has to search for it.
2. I don’t know but if God said something but actually really wanted us to figure out He was wrong in what He said, that sounds pretty deceitful to me.
3. Maybe because evolution has no support whatsoever within Scripture, it actually contradicts it.

You claimed God using evolution meant we weren't made in his image. You haven't backed other than to take potshots at science and claim you literal interpretation is right. Of course the problem is you can't back the claim up.

No I personally can’t back up the claim that the words God used were correct. I don’t feel it’s my place to do so, I simply trust Him at His Word.

Is God being refreshed after a rest foundational too?

Exodus 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

Are God's literal arms and hands foundational too?

Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Same Sabbath command in the ten commandments in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Why is a literal description of the creation necessary as an illustration of the Sabbath when a Moses didn't stick to a literal description of the Exodus from Egypt when he gave the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy?


Are you even right to claim the Sabbath is foundational? Col2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

You claim a literal six day creation is 'foundational' but you have only show how it is used in an illustration of the Sabbath, and illustration in the middle of a metaphor describing God as a weary labourer being refreshed after a day's rest. And far from the Sabbath itself being foundational, we find in the NT that the Sabbath itself is just a shadow.

I’m truly at a loss attempting to understand why so many Scriptures are so difficult for you to understand, figure out and just believe. Is that the reason why so many Scriptures are figurative or wide open to interpretation because it doesn’t pin you down on anything? Honestly, I can’t recall another Christian having so many issues with Scripture. Yes at times it can be difficult to understand, but it’s not nearly as difficult as you seem to make it. I’ve never looked at or taken issue with these Scriptures in the same light you do, there are far more important things for me to do than to ask, does God have literal arms, was God being refreshed after a rest, is the Sabbath a shadow etc. It would appear that you and I are coming to the text from two entirely different perspectives a 180 degrees apart and therefore I can’t see yours and you can’t see mine.

What point do I need to prove? We know Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. We know the poppy seed was smaller. You claim that the mustard seed is the smallest seed planted in Palestine is doubly irrelevant because that is not what Jesus said, he said it was the smallest of all seeds and because, as I have shown, they did have poppies and valued them.

The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Are you willing to learn from our master or keep reading scripture your own way?

No other point is there needed for you to prove. I’ve learned that Jesus was either a liar or just ignorant.

Like Jesus said he was a door. You are beginning to get it.

Trust me I’m getting it and it’s not a pretty sight.

Long question. I'll get back to you.

I was just looking for the cliff notes but if you wish to prepare an in-depth answer I’ll be happy to hear it.

Jos 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for

Israel.
The passage is talking about the miracle of the sun standing still.

The point being God made time stand still.

Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.
The writer is describing a number of natural processes continuing on in the world around us. There is nothing to suggest they are not meant literally. Melanchton drew on this passage in his assault on heliocentrism.

The point wasn’t the sun or the earth but how time is fleeting and everything will continue on the earth as it always has. All is vanity except our time focused on and spent with God.

Matt 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Is there any reason not to think Jesus is being as literal here as he was about mustard seeds?

Only for someone caught up in trying to prove the Scriptures wrong.

The context of Psalm 90 is that it was written by the only person in the whole bible to mention creation days and that it was a Psalm about the creation. Psalm 90:1 A Prayer of Moses, the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

The context of Psalm 90 is the eternity of God and the frailty of man.

You mean there was a tree of life but it couldn't make people live for ever, in spite of what God said in Gen 3:22?

I said the tree of life was a literal tree but I didn’t say it can give eternal life.

Sorry: And even though God tells the snake that the seed of the woman would crush his head, you think this is figurative? In an account that never mentions Satan but holds the snake responsible for tempting Eve, that tells us the snake was cursed for his crime by having to crawl on his belly and eat dust every day and that he was going to have his head bruised because of what he had done, what would makes you think the part about the snake's head being crushed was figurative?

The rest of Scripture does. Remember all of Scripture is there to help us understand.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The point being God made time stand still.

The point wasn’t the sun or the earth but how time is fleeting and everything will continue on the earth as it always has. All is vanity except our time focused on and spent with God.

Nonsense!

We could just as well claim that the point of the Genesis 1 passage was to convey that God is God alone and planets are not gods, and that God purposefully and orderly created the universe and it was not formed from chaos or a mistake.

But, oh, no, that makes us not true to the text, because the Holy Spirit intended to convey a chronological account of cosmological protology.

Why are you allowed to disregard picture or method conveyed in the Joshua account in favor of its overall purpose, but we can't do the same with Genesis 1?

Six-day literalism without geocentrism is a sell-out to Copernican astronomy.

 

[Deamiter]

Wow vossler -- it's so weird to hear you say that on the subject of geocentrism, you accept what science says because it's not the main point of the verses that talk about the sun standing still etc... It's almost like... no wait, it's EXACTLY like when we say that it'd be a mistake to read Genesis 1 and 2 literally because the meaning in the passages is to set God apart from the gods in surrounding cultures' religions and to demonstrate that mankind (Adam in Hebrew) is fallen because we choose to sin.

It's really rather astonishing how similar our hermeneutics actually are. It seems you've just got a couple passages you cling to as literal/historical when you should be looking at the spritual meaning (i.e. we should rest one part in seven -- every seven days, every seven years and every 7x7 years, not that the Earth was actually created in 6 days...)

 

[vossler]

Why are you allowed to disregard picture or method conveyed in the Joshua account in favor of its overall purpose, but we can't do the same with Genesis 1?

I see the creation story as a little more important and foundational to everything that follows, the Joshua account isn't nearly in the same league or as influential.

 

[vossler]

It's really rather astonishing how similar our hermeneutics actually are. It seems you've just got a couple passages you cling to as literal/historical when you should be looking at the spritual meaning (i.e. we should rest one part in seven -- every seven days, every seven years and every 7x7 years, not that the Earth was actually created in 6 days...)

Can't a passage be literal/historical and spiritual? The 6 days is primarily important because of Exodus 20. It sets the tone of how God expects us to live.

 

[theFijian]

Maybe because evolution has no support whatsoever within Scripture, it actually contradicts it.

Heliocentrism has no support whatsoever within scripture, it actually contradicts. You keep going round in cirles vossler, you keep peddling the same inconsistencies and lies about the TE position. When is it going to stop?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I see the creation story as a little more important and foundational to everything that follows, the Joshua account isn't nearly in the same league or as influential.

Poppycock!

So we can disregard Joshua just because it's not as important? Nonsense! The six days themselves are inconsequential. They are actually less important, since the Joshua miracle allowed a victory over the Amalikites that advanced salvation history! A six-day creation does no such thing.

You can't get around geocentrism because it really is scientific insanity. Either stick to a consistent, literal hermeneutic that accepts the methods and pictures of miraculous events throughout all historical narratives, and in so doing be a consistent six-day, young earth, geocentrist creationist, or stop defending six-day creationism.

 

[vossler]

Poppycock!

So we can disregard Joshua just because it's not as important? Nonsense!

Yeah, that's what I said.

Either stick to a consistent, literal hermeneutic that accepts the methods and pictures of miraculous events throughout all historical narratives, and in so doing be a consistent six-day, young earth, geocentrist creationist, or stop defending six-day creationism.

The all or nothing approach. I hope you don't use that on dates.

 

[theFijian]

Yeah, that's what I said.
The all or nothing approach. I hope you don't use that on dates.

It's easy to tell when vossler has no answers.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I love getting the chance to use such outdated terms.

Yeah, that's what I said.

And to repost your quote in response:

I see the creation story as a little more important and foundational to everything that follows, the Joshua account isn't nearly in the same league or as influential.

And this was posted in response to this quote of mine:

Why are you allowed to disregard picture or method conveyed in the Joshua account in favor of its overall purpose, but we can't do the same with Genesis 1?

So, yes, that seems to be exactly what you were saying.

The all or nothing approach. I hope you don't use that on dates.

Are you refering here to the problem of disregarding dates altogether, or the gross inconsistency in biblical reportings of judgeship reigns and the length of the reign of the judges as a whole?

Can't a passage be literal/historical and spiritual? The 6 days is primarily important because of Exodus 20. It sets the tone of how God expects us to live.

No. A text has a 'plain' meaning- a single meaning. To speak in any other terms is to head back toward medieval Catholic exegesis and its 'four senses.' It might have a 'plain' meaning and then a 'meaning-for-you' that you take from it in personal study and devotion, but there is no warrant for enforcing the personal encouragement you take from the passage on others.

Moreover, while the passages in Exodus give us one of the only non-Genesis 1 passages alluding to a six-day creation (that and the substructure of Luke... check that out sometime because it's really fun), I would simply contend that this is simply a reference to the preexisting Sabbath text later written as the beginning of Genesis.

By the way, have you ever attended a Jewish or Messianic Shabbat (= Sabbath) service? Their use of the Genesis text is really fascinating. It's what has led a lot of scholars to conclude that the Genesis 1 narrative began as liturgical Sabbath service in the Jerusalem temple (note, I'm not questioning it's inspiration, any more than Luke was questioning the inspiration of his account when he said he had sources).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I see the creation story as a little more important and foundational to everything that follows

Funny. Many Christians believe the bits about Jesus and his ministry are the important bit.

But I guess if they were as important as Genesis, they wouldn't be at the back of the Bible, would they? Rather, up near the front somewhere

 

[Assyrian]

I really don’t know.

Very few cared then and it’s no different today.

You say you don't know what was going on in the time of Luther and Copernicus, then you confidently claim you do know. Very few cared about geocentrism or a six day creation. The difference was, no one questioned geocentrism, while people did question literal days and it still wasn't an issue.

It certainly is different today. No one, or very few, care about geocentrism, not because the interpretation is the same today, but because the interpretation is completely different. It was changed when scientific evidence showed the geocentric interpretation was wrong.

Today you have groups of Christians who deny YEC or heliocentrism, and even some who claim the earth is flat. The only reason no one apart from geocentrist and the flat earthers care about those issues is because the numbers are small. People care about YEC because they get mistaken for what Christianity and the bible teaches. If geocentrists and flat earthers were as prominent as YECs people would care about that too. But apart from prominence and popularity, what is the difference?

Are you serious? I only need one rock and it’s definitely not from the outside. Trillions of days vs. six days, one is in the Bible and the other isn’t. It doesn’t get much easier than that.

No it doesn't even scratch out interpretation because we know what Moses said about God's days.

On the other hand Joshua says the sun stood still. When we throw literalist rocks at your interpretation it cannot handle them because your interpretation is literalist. This is the plain sense of the text and it makes common sense, the only reason to deny it is what science tells you.

Until someone can show otherwise of course. Do you submit to someone else’s opinion without support?

Yet you think we should accept YEC when you cannot support it, when you cannot show where we we should take scripture literally and when to listen to science. All we have is 'the Holy Spirit told you'?

Paul didn’t have modern sciences at his disposal, you do. You’ve got a leg up on him and can trump him because he truly doesn’t know. You’ve got solid scientific evidence proving that His bones exist. What do you do?

I think High Priests and Pharisees dragging Jesus' crucified corpse from the grave would have been as good as anything modern science could possibly provide. One of the greatest strengths of Christian witness has been that it is unafraid of the evidence. YEC has sold us out on that one.

So science has become the modern day prophet?

No just a human witness on what has happened. Like the guy who runs in with the news that Jerusalem has fallen. He is not a prophet, he just knows what happened. But suddenly the prophets who proclaimed Jerusalem would not fall and the interpreters who said God's word told them the temple was secure, are all recognised as false prophets and bad interpreters.

1.....In one the Scripture is direct and the other one has to search for it.

You can't get more direct than Joshua 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel.

Or Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

2.....I don’t know but if God said something but actually really wanted us to figure out He was wrong in what He said, that sounds pretty deceitful to me.

But if it is wrong then God didn't say it did he. It was just our interpretation, like geocentrism and flat earth.

I really don't see how you keep having such a contradictory approach.
Earth does not have corners and isn't set on pillars => flat earth is a misinterpretation.
Sun does not go around the earth => geocentrism is a misinterpretation.
Earth older than 6000 year => God lied.

3.....Maybe because evolution has no support whatsoever within Scripture, it actually contradicts it.

As theFijian said Heliocentrism has no support whatsoever within scripture, it actually contradicts.

Now can I have a real answer to my questions

1. How is being wrong about the bible teaching geocentrism any different from being wrong about the bible teaching a six day creation?
2. How does being wrong about either have a bearing on the truth of scripture?
3. And if the church would have been right to wait and see about Copernicus, why is it wrong to wait and see about geological ages and evolution?

No I personally can’t back up the claim that the words God used were correct. I don’t feel it’s my place to do so, I simply trust Him at His Word.

God never said evolution contradicts his word. That was your claim, and it was your claim that I was asking you to back up.

I’m truly at a loss attempting to understand why so many Scriptures are so difficult for you to understand, figure out and just believe. Is that the reason why so many Scriptures are figurative or wide open to interpretation because it doesn’t pin you down on anything? Honestly, I can’t recall another Christian having so many issues with Scripture. Yes at times it can be difficult to understand, but it’s not nearly as difficult as you seem to make it. I’ve never looked at or taken issue with these Scriptures in the same light you do, there are far more important things for me to do than to ask, does God have literal arms, was God being refreshed after a rest, is the Sabbath a shadow etc. It would appear that you and I are coming to the text from two entirely different perspectives a 180 degrees apart and therefore I can’t see yours and you can’t see mine.

I don't have an issue with scripture I have an issue with your claim a six day creation is foundational, when you cannot show it to be foundational to anything taught in the NT, anything in the Gospel, simply that it was used as an illustration for a ceremonial law the NT called a shadow.

I do have an issue with a manmade hermeneutic claiming to show us how we should deal with science when it is utterly unable to deal with any of the scientific questions the church faced in the past or tell us when we should reject a traditional interpretation in the face of scientific evidence or when to reject the science.

there are far more important things for me to do than to ask, does God have literal arms, was God being refreshed after a rest, is the Sabbath a shadow etc

You think the six days are 'foundational' in the Sabbath command, yet the way the NT writers look at the Sabbath is dismissed as unimportant. You said yourself: the three most important words in understanding Scripture. Context, context, context. Yet questions in the context of such a such a 'foundational' doctrine are simply dismissed with a you 'have far more important things to do' than look at them. The context of God being describe as a weary labouter or having arms and hands tells us we are dealing with a metaphor and that the six days you insist on having to interpret literally are really in the middle of an anthropomorphic metaphor.

No other point is there needed for you to prove. I’ve learned that Jesus was either a liar or just ignorant.

I never said any such thing. If Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, why don't you simply believe him? Or better still let your thinking be transformed by the words of our Lord and leave behind the simplistic man made hermeneutic that cannot deal with God's living and active word.

Trust me I’m getting it and it’s not a pretty sight.

Six day has to be literal or God is a liar. Mustard seeds and doors can't be literal, but you can't say why they are not literal but the six days have to be. You can't cope with the idea that sometimes God says things that are not literal without warning us. But of course that can't apply to the six days. God would be a liar. Right

The point being God made time stand still.

The point is the bible actually said the sun stopped moving. Why not take it literally like you take the six days? Science?

The point wasn’t the sun or the earth but how time is fleeting and everything will continue on the earth as it always has. All is vanity except our time focused on and spent with God.

But the bible says the sun rushes around the earth. Why not take it literally like you take the six days? Could it be because you believe the science instead of the plain meaning of scripture?

Only for someone caught up in trying to prove the Scriptures wrong.

Only trying to show the scripture misinterpreted. Why do you believe science rather than the plain sense of the word of God?

The context of Psalm 90 is the eternity of God and the frailty of man.

So Psalm 90 doesn't talk about God forming the mountains and the world? Is it some sort of manuscript error? The eternity of God and frailty of man is certainly a theme of the Psalm but it also tells us quite plainly that God's days are very different to ours, in the context of a discussion of the creation.

I said the tree of life was a literal tree but I didn’t say it can give eternal life.

So you believe the tree is literal but you don't believe what God said about it?

The rest of Scripture does. Remember all of Scripture is there to help us understand.

The rest of scripture tells us God often uses potter and clay as a metaphor, and the rest of scripture tell us the snake wasn't a reptile it was a metaphor for Satan. And the rest of scripture tells us physical food cannot give everlasting life only Jesus can. It is the rest of scripture that tells us the story in the garden is highly allegorical.

The story itself tells you none of that. You can read it literally and remain totally in the dark. So how do you know the made of clay is a bit that has to be interpreted literally and it is not one of the bits that are figurative?

 

[vossler]

You say you don't know what was going on in the time of Luther and Copernicus, then you confidently claim you do know.

I really don’t know what Luther was thinking when he wrote about geocentrism and to be perfectly honest it really isn’t important. Why should it be? It's not a doctrinal issue of any sort, it has no real historical significance. Yet it obviously is important to you and something you feel strong enough about to pursue more vigilantly. Go for it!

People care about YEC because they get mistaken for what Christianity and the bible teaches. If geocentrists and flat earthers were as prominent as YECs people would care about that too. But apart from prominence and popularity, what is the difference?

How about the Bible teaches one and not the other.

Yet you think we should accept YEC when you cannot support it, when you cannot show where we should take scripture literally and when to listen to science. All we have is 'the Holy Spirit told you'?

Scripture clearly supports it, but if you’re inclined to disbelieve and submit everything to science, that’s your prerogative and you’ll have to live with it. From everything I can tell you are very content to stay that course.

I think High Priests and Pharisees dragging Jesus' crucified corpse from the grave would have been as good as anything modern science could possibly provide.

So are you saying you believe the evidence?

No just a human witness on what has happened. Like the guy who runs in with the news that Jerusalem has fallen. He is not a prophet, he just knows what happened.

Weren’t both you and gluadys saying that a prophet tells us what happened?

You can't get more direct than Joshua 10:12 At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.
14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the LORD obeyed the voice of a man, for the LORD fought for Israel.

Or Eccles 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

So to you the point of these Scriptures isn’t that time stood still and that God is outside of time but that physical aspects of the Sun moving?

But if it is wrong then God didn't say it did he. It was just our interpretation, like geocentrism and flat earth.

Ahh…so when He said six days He really wanted us to look at our interpretation of six days and realize it was wrong. Gotcha!

As theFijian said Heliocentrism has no support whatsoever within scripture, it actually contradicts.

So if something has no support, it actually means it does. I’m beginning to understand the logic.

Now can I have a real answer to my questions:

1. How is being wrong about the bible teaching geocentrism any different from being wrong about the bible teaching a six day creation?
2. How does being wrong about either have a bearing on the truth of scripture?
3. And if the church would have been right to wait and see about Copernicus, why is it wrong to wait and see about geological ages and evolution?

1. The Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism, at best we can say is that geocentrism is something that can be inferred from the text.
2. See answer 1
3. See answer 1

God never said evolution contradicts his word. That was your claim, and it was your claim that I was asking you to back up.

God never said abortion contradicts his word either.

I don't have an issue with scripture I have an issue with your claim a six day creation is foundational, when you cannot show it to be foundational to anything taught in the NT, anything in the Gospel, simply that it was used as an illustration for a ceremonial law the NT called a shadow.

No whether you’re willing to admit it or not you have issues with Scripture. Your belief that the Bible teaches a flat earth, geocentric system, Jesus trillions of days and those are just what come immediately to mind. None of those things concern me in the least, I accept only what the Bible actually teaches.
We most certainly come to Scripture from two entirely different directions.

I never said any such thing. If Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, why don't you simply believe him?

You didn’t have to say it, it’s implied.

That’s just it I do, you’re the one with a problem with it and claim He isn’t right and the natural conclusion would be that He is either a liar or ignorant.

Six day has to be literal or God is a liar.

There is no reason to believe otherwise so yes He would be a liar.

Mustard seeds and doors can't be literal, but you can't say why they are not literal but the six days have to be.

If one starts with the understanding that everything God says is true instead of a challenge for us to disprove, then it’s all easier for us to accept.

The point is the bible actually said the sun stopped moving. Why not take it literally like you take the six days? Science?

I do take it literally, I'm sure the sun did stop moving.

But the bible says the sun rushes around the earth. Why not take it literally like you take the six days? Could it be because you believe the science instead of the plain meaning of scripture?

It’s hard to get the point sometimes when all we see is the science of it all. I myself am not star struck by the tool of science.

Only trying to show the scripture misinterpreted. Why do you believe science rather than the plain sense of the word of God?

I believe in the truth of God’s Word instead of looking for ways to disprove it or find fault with it.

So Psalm 90 doesn't talk about God forming the mountains and the world? Is it some sort of manuscript error? The eternity of God and frailty of man is certainly a theme of the Psalm but it also tells us quite plainly that God's days are very different to ours, in the context of a discussion of the creation.

If you wish to believe that Psalm 90s main theme is about creation that’s your prerogative.

So you believe the tree is literal but you don't believe what God said about it?

No, I’m just repeating what I said and not what you attempted to have me say.

It is the rest of scripture that tells us the story in the garden is highly allegorical.

Oh that’s right, this is where Psalm 90 comes in.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

How about the Bible teaches one and not the other.

How about the Bible teaches geocentrism and not the other?

1. The Bible doesn’t teach geocentrism, at best we can say is that geocentrism is something that can be inferred from the text.
2. See answer 1
3. See answer 1

Actually, we can say that it is not only implied by also assumed by the text, which by the literalist model of inspiration means it is assumed on the part of the ultimate author, the Holy Spirit.

Oh no!

I do take it literally, I'm sure the sun did stop moving.

Wait... You do realize that the sun's movement in the Joshua passage is the halting of the sun's motion is in reference to it remaining visibly in the sky... and that if you take this literally, as you say you do, you must assume a geocentric model?

 

[gluadys]

I believe they have been handed to us on a silver platter, it's just He won't force them onto us we must choose to believe them.

And what universals, handed to us on a silver platter, do you think apply to science?

It seems that the universals that do apply in science, like gravity and quanta and atomic structure did need to be discovered.

I see this as a figurative statement, whereby God is telling us the earth is established and fixed just like He is.

And you do that because you accept the science. If you did not have the scientific information and you were told the earth is established on foundations so that "it cannot be moved", what would you then assume the plain meaning to be?

I get the impression sometimes that the only reason you think the scripture does not teach geocentrism is because the word "geocentrism" is not found in scripture. (But then the word "Trinity" is not found in scripture either. Does that mean it is not taught in scripture?)

But you get tangled up in your own statements because you do not think them through. For example, scripture says that at Joshua's request God stopped the sun from moving. You say that you agree the sun stopped moving.

But what would the point of stopping the sun be in a heliocentric solar system? One thing for sure, it would have no effect on the length of the day. In a heliocentric solar system, a day would be 24 hours whether the sun was moving or standing still. So why does the text say the sun stopped?

The clear implication of the text is that it was because of the motionless sun that the day was lengthened. And that is not possible in a heliocentric solar system. Only in a geocentric system can stopping the sun affect the length of the day.

So between several references to the motion of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth, the geocentric point of view of scripture is really obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it.

If something as plain as "so that [the earth] cannot move" can not apply literally to physical reality, what is so different about "six days" and its application to physical time?

And don't come back with "because the first does not affect doctrine and the second does". You make this claim, but you have not said what doctrine "six days" is essential too, or why.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But you get tangled up in your own statements because you do not think them through. For example, scripture says that at Joshua's request God stopped the sun from moving. You say that you agree the sun stopped moving.

But what would the point of stopping the sun be in a heliocentric solar system? One thing for sure, it would have no effect on the length of the day. In a heliocentric solar system, a day would be 24 hours whether the sun was moving or standing still. So why does the text say the sun stopped?

The clear implication of the text is that it was because of the motionless sun that the day was lengthened. And that is not possible in a heliocentric solar system. Only in a geocentric system can stopping the sun affect the length of the day.

Reposted for beauty, and to add emphasis to my same point in post #314.

 

[vossler]

And what universals, handed to us on a silver platter, do you think apply to science?

It seems that the universals that do apply in science, like gravity and quanta and atomic structure did need to be discovered.

Besides the ones you mentioned, how about anything God said and that God is the author of everything. Wherever He speaks authoritatively, it is a universal. If He said it took six days, days which had evenings and mornings, then it took six days.

And you do that because you accept the science. If you did not have the scientific information and you were told the earth is established on foundations so that "it cannot be moved", what would you then assume the plain meaning to be?

It really doesn’t matter if I accept the science here or not because all the science can ever do is confirm what God has already said. If what He says conflicts with my understanding or interpretation then I must investigate further. The plain meaning simply means that the earth is unmovable and fixed, which it is.

I get the impression sometimes that the only reason you think the scripture does not teach geocentrism is because the word "geocentrism" is not found in scripture. (But then the word "Trinity" is not found in scripture either. Does that mean it is not taught in scripture?)

Why does Scripture have to ‘teach’ a theory or idea on every subject of which it speaks? Maybe this is why some are confused about the ‘arms of God’ being a teaching that God has arms.

But you get tangled up in your own statements because you do not think them through. For example, scripture says that at Joshua's request God stopped the sun from moving. You say that you agree the sun stopped moving.

Are you saying that Joshua didn’t really think the sun stopped moving? Of course not, to him it did exactly that. I don’t see any entanglements.

But what would the point of stopping the sun be in a heliocentric solar system? One thing for sure, it would have no effect on the length of the day. In a heliocentric solar system, a day would be 24 hours whether the sun was moving or standing still. So why does the text say the sun stopped?

The clear implication of the text is that it was because of the motionless sun that the day was lengthened. And that is not possible in a heliocentric solar system. Only in a geocentric system can stopping the sun affect the length of the day.

Quite trying to make everything scientific and you won’t have such a problem with the text. Just accept it as it is written.

So between several references to the motion of the sun and the motionlessness of the earth, the geocentric point of view of scripture is really obvious to anyone who takes the time to think about it.

If you’re caught up trying to figure out is whether the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa that’s probably right.

If something as plain as "so that [the earth] cannot move" can not apply literally to physical reality, what is so different about "six days" and its application to physical time?

It does apply to anyone willing to trust and believe. I may not fully understand it, but I certainly believe it.

And don't come back with "because the first does not affect doctrine and the second does". You make this claim, but you have not said what doctrine "six days" is essential too, or why.

How about the doctrine of work.

 

[Melethiel]

Quite trying to make everything scientific and you won’t have such a problem with the text. Just accept it as it is written.

But you don't do so yourself, or you would believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist, which the plain meaning of the text clearly teaches.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Besides the ones you mentioned, how about anything God said and that God is the author of everything. Wherever He speaks authoritatively, it is a universal. If He said it took six days, days which had evenings and mornings, then it took six days.
It really doesn’t matter if I accept the science here or not because all the science can ever do is confirm what God has already said. If what He says conflicts with my understanding or interpretation then I must investigate further. The plain meaning simply means that the earth is unmovable and fixed, which it is.
Why does Scripture have to ‘teach’ a theory or idea on every subject of which it speaks? Maybe this is why some are confused about the ‘arms of God’ being a teaching that God has arms.
Are you saying that Joshua didn’t really think the sun stopped moving? Of course not, to him it did exactly that. I don’t see any entanglements.
Quite trying to make everything scientific and you won’t have such a problem with the text. Just accept it as it is written.
If you’re caught up trying to figure out is whether the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa that’s probably right.

It does apply to anyone willing to trust and believe. I may not fully understand it, but I certainly believe it.
How about the doctrine of work.

So... you're now a geocentrist now, then?

Good to see someone consistent.

 

[gluadys]

Besides the ones you mentioned, how about anything God said and that God is the author of everything. Wherever He speaks authoritatively, it is a universal. If He said it took six days, days which had evenings and mornings, then it took six days.

Isn't this assuming that God is not speaking authoritatively if he is not speaking literally? Why equate authoritative with literal?

And if that is a valid principle, why does it not also apply to "[the earth] cannot be moved" and "This is my body"?

In any case, your example is not a universal. It is not a general principle from which we can deduce particulars. It is itself a particular deduced from the principle that the correct hermeneutic to apply in this case is a literal one.

An example of a universal in scripture would be Jesus' command to "Love one another, as I have loved you." Or his injuction to the lawyer to whom he recounted the parable of the Good Samaritan "Go and do likewise."

It really doesn’t matter if I accept the science here or not because all the science can ever do is confirm what God has already said.

Well, I agree God said it: in creation. But it took science to find out what was said. God did not say it in scripture. What he apparently said in scripture is that the earth is established on foundations so that it cannot be moved. How does what God said in creation confirm what God said in scripture in this case?

However, I agree with you. All science can do is confirm what God has already said. And it has confirmed a billions-year old earth and it has confirmed evolution.

The plain meaning simply means that the earth is unmovable and fixed, which it is.

According to a plain meaning or according to a meaning re-interpreted in the light of scientific discovery that actually it is not fixed to foundations, pillars or anything else, and is not unmovable but has orbital motion, axial spin and various wobbles?

Why does Scripture have to ‘teach’ a theory or idea on every subject of which it speaks? Maybe this is why some are confused about the ‘arms of God’ being a teaching that God has arms.

Why do you insist that it does teach "six days"? What is the principle by which you decide when it is teaching and when it is not?

Are you saying that Joshua didn’t really think the sun stopped moving? Of course not, to him it did exactly that.

That is not what you said in post 313. You didn't speak of what Joshua thought. You said:

I do take it literally, I'm sure the sun did stop moving. ​

Quite trying to make everything scientific and you won’t have such a problem with the text. Just accept it as it is written.

Why don't you do that with "so that [the earth] cannot move"? Why get all scientific about it? Why not just accept it as it is written?

I don't have a problem with the text because I am consistent in how I deal with texts such as these. I don't take any of them to have a literal referent. You keep trying to have it both ways: some are literal, some are not. But you have no consistent principle for determining which is which.

If you’re caught up trying to figure out is whether the sun goes around the earth or vice-versa that’s probably right.

And that is exactly the position both scientists and Church leaders were in given the theory of Copernicus and the astronomical discoveries of Galileo. They were very much caught up in trying to figure out whether the sun goes round the earth or vice-versa.

It does apply to anyone willing to trust and believe. I may not fully understand it, but I certainly believe it.

So basically, you don't know why you believe it. Nor can you explain why you believe in the literal factuality of six days, but not in the literal factuality of solar motion and earth's immobility. How is it that you are willing to accept the first on trust, but depend on science for the second.

That is really all any of us are asking. If trusting in the plain meaning is good for accepting six days, why is it not good enough for geocentrism? If science is good enough not to accept geocentrism, why is it not good enough to consider a non-literal meaning for six days? Why straddle the fence?

How about the doctrine of work.

Do you mean the teaching on the Sabbath? Since the sabbath can be a day, a year, one year in fifty, thousands of years (as the original Sabbath never ended), and even eternity, it hardly follows that the preceding six days must be literal days.

There is also a good deal more to the Sabbath than taking a break from work. It is actually an act of social justice that involves right treatment of servants (including domestic animals) and redistribution of wealth. In its full dimensions the Sabbath is very socialistic. But that is for another forum.