Something to think about.

What Scripture's in the Bible, indicate that the Earth is flat?

A lot of the old testament, a little bit of the new testament. Why do you ask?

Because you're referencing Science in specific detail, and the scriptures only in general with no book, chapter and verse.

Originally posted by CelandineBaggins
I would like to say one thing, I am sorry for losing my temper. It probably sounded very childish, and I sincerely apologize. I cannot see where anyone would get the notion that I am wrapping myself in blind faith. Let's just say that you are all right, and that there is no God, or that we were created from monkeys, or whatever your theories are. If I sincerely follow my faith, and it really doesn't exist, what have I got to lose? But if you guys (and girls) are wrong, you have a lot more to lose than just your seemingly logical science. I am not calling you wrong, at least not in this post. I am not afraid to face the real world, bacause I face the real world every day. I don't live in a hologram, you know. I see signs of God every where I look. To me, it just makes more sense. And thank you very much to all of you who presented your ideas to me in a polite and tolerable manner. I appreciate it much more than you know. I will not change my mind unless a monkey walks up to me and talks, explaining the whole theory of evolution, but I will tolerate you and your ideas, and do my best to be patient, not lose my temper, and treat you like other human beings. After all, nobody knows everything.
Celandine

Click to expand...

Wow. She's actually made a very mature statement here. Celadine has apologized in a public forum - a brave thing to do, that not many people have done.

Bravo Celadine.

Originally posted by DARRIONS
What Scripture's in the Bible, indicate that the Earth is flat?

Click to expand...

There are passages that speak of the four corners of the Earth, but globes don't have corners: Rev. 7:1 & Rev. 20:8 for example. Because we have obvious reason to suspect the earth does not have corners, most Christians consider "four corners" to be a metaphorical discription of the earth and not a literal one.

There is also Mathew 4:8 in which the Devil shows Jesus all the nations of the world from a single mountain. This is impossible to do unless the world is flat or near so. Thus a litteral interpretation would lead one out of reality. Thus the passage is interpreted by most people metaphorically.

I don't want to say the Bible advocates a flat earth, it's just that the consequences of a litteral interpretation can lead one to believe as such.

"Celadine has apologized in a public forum - a brave thing to do, that not many people have done. "

-damn, I guess celandine no longer satisfies the criteria for a creation scientist

Originally posted by DARRIONS
Because you're referencing Science in specific detail, and the scriptures only in general with no book, chapter and verse.

Click to expand...

That's because I am better with science. I study population genetics and evolution. I am trying my best to make it clear that science and religion don't have to confict. I am floundering trying to explain how people reconcile the two. I would rather not have to, but as of this time I'm the first one putting any effort into discussing these things with you. I just hope some more people come along that can do better with the Faith side than I can.

I would be asking my fiancee to back me up, but she is at her parents doing wedding stuff, and I can't find my NIV since she used it.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

I don't want to say the Bible advocates a flat earth, it's just that the consequences of a litteral [sic] interpretation can lead one to believe as such.

Click to expand...

No scripture is as flexible as when it is put in the hands of an anti-creationist. Bring up Genesis, and they say the Bible story can only be interpreted as allegory and not literally. But when the occasion arises to ridicul Bible believers in some other way, suddenly a common figure of speech such as "the four corners of the earth" MUST be taken literally to mean the author believed the earth was a square.

But none of this is surprising. Evolutionists apply the same flexible techniques when they interpret data and evidence.

Sorry, Celandine, I missed this one first time through, although I think I have touched on topics similar to this. I really am glad that you have continued with this thread. I was afraid that I had hurt your feelings.

Originally posted by CelandineBaggins
I am beginning to see where you are coming from. I still have a hard time accepting it, however. Genesis 1:26 says and I quote- "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...'"
Can you argue with that? And if We came orignally from monkeys, why don't monkeys have souls also?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I'm arguing with Genesis 1:26. Most Christians I've discussed this with agree that the 'image' does not refer to the physical nature of man but the spiritual. (Does God have legs and arms?) According to most modern Christian theology, God's gift to mankind was the soul. That's how we are created in his image.

It says in Genesis that God created man. Not monkeys to eventually over thousands of years branch off and evolve into man. That's what really confuses me.

Click to expand...

The creation story of Genesis 1 does not say how God made man, just that he did. Here it is not hard to reconcile Faith in God as a creator with the evidence that we (physically) are the products of evolution.

Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV)
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by npetreley
No scripture is as flexible as when it is put in the hands of an anti-creationist. Bring up Genesis, and they say the Bible story can only be interpreted as allegory and not literally. But when the occasion arises to ridicul Bible believers in some other way, suddenly a common figure of speech such as "the four corners of the earth" MUST be taken literally to mean the author believed the earth was a square.

Click to expand...

Hey, Nick, I thought you were ignoring me. But I notice that you haven't stopped misrepresenting me. I never said that those passages "MUST be taken literally." I only said that a literal interpretation can lead one to believe that it supports a flat earth. In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying in the the passage you quoted.

In fact, it's the creationsts who argue almost exactly what you accuse me of doing. "'Four corners' is obviously supposed to be metaphorical but Genesis must be taken literally." How is that anymore intellectually honest than what you accused me of doing?

But none of this is surprising. Evolutionists apply the same flexible techniques when they interpret data and evidence.

Click to expand...

Nice rhetoric. I bet it's about as valid as your previous comments about me.

I'm heading to bed. I'll pick up this discussion tomorrow. Maybe I'll try to give and intro to evolution tomorrow.

I've been trying to PM seebs and The Bear to come help out in this thread. They are both Christians (if I am not mistaken, The Bear is an Evangelical type), and they do not see a conflict between evolution and Christianity that warrants dismissal of either. Unfortunately, either (because I have a bug in the Java2 platform installed on this box or because of some bugs on the board), I cannot send a PM right now... If anyone can get the call out, I'm sure it would be appreciated.

Darrions & Celandine,

I cannot add much to this discussion except to note that Rufus is correct when he tells you that science isn't against God. There are two fairly well-known scientists that I can think of who openly advocate evolution and talk publicly about their religious beliefs. One is a liberal Christian by the name of Kenneth Miller, another is a conservative Christian by the name of Keith Miller. They are just two of many. At least one person that I know of is a conservative Christian who used to be a "creationist" but switched sides on the evolution debate without changing his religion. His name is Glenn Morton, and his testimony about why he changed sides is on the web.

To be completely frank with you, but not to start an argument, I am not a Christian. I come from a conservative Christian family, (and I still love them and they, me), but I changed my mind on religion. I am just telling you this to be up front with you about my own religious beliefs. I did not want to mislead you to think that I was one of the Christians who accept evolution.

I do, however, know the Bible frontwards and back. I learned a lot about it while I was a Christian, and I kept learning about it after I left the faith. I agree with Rufus that there are many passages that must be interpreted as metaphor or allegory rather than as literal fact. Many Christians have "rules" they use for determining whether a passage should be interpreted as allegory or metaphor, or whether it should be interpreted as fact. For most, those rules do not rule out a non-literal interpretaion of the creation account. Only a few (and usually the few that don't understand the science, or just resent it) insist that the creation account is a strictly literal telling of HOW God created everything, and WHEN God did the creating.

I hope that this will help clear things up for you. Even more, I hope that seebs and the Bear will pick up this thread and talk to you about this subject. Also, if I am not mistaken, LewisWildermuth is a Christian evolutionist, so he may like to weigh in as well.

I was a tad harsh in my earlier post. For that I apologize. Maybe you should read some books on science and astronomy, if nothing else you would walk away with a better understanding of what other people think. Learning is a life long process, don't stop just because you think you have found something that explains what is going on. Nothing can explain everything, science and God included.

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

In fact, it's the creationsts who argue almost exactly what you accuse me of doing. "'Four corners' is obviously supposed to be metaphorical but Genesis must be taken literally." How is that anymore intellectually honest than what you accused me of doing?

Click to expand...

How is that intellectually honest (as opposed to your intellectual dishonesty and/or ignorance of the text?) Easy.

1. Metaphors and similes are not the same thing as allegory. Intelligent and unintelligent people may not believe there was a real tower of Babel, but any idiot can recognize a figure of speech. Well, obviously that should be "almost any."

2. There are numerous references to creation as being a literal creation (most of them being OUTSIDE Genesis) and there are many other related texts that depend on it being literal. Do people write them all off? Sure, but people believe in evolution, too. It's called denial. But the text is not consistent any other way.

3. There are no texts that require "the 4 corners of the earth" to be taken literally. It's not a fundamental concept that is repeated throughout the Bible, and upon which related texts depend.

Originally posted by npetreley

3. There are no texts that require "the 4 corners of the earth" to be taken literally. It's not a fundamental concept that is repeated throughout the Bible, and upon which related texts depend. [/B]

Click to expand...

Neither is literal 6-day creation. Yes, creation is important in the Bible, but it isn't in dispute. The question is not, "Did God create?", but rather "did evolution take place?" It is completely possible that both are correctly answered "yes", no matter how much you would like to convince people otherwise.

So here's a question.- If monkeys over thousands of years gave birth to animals a little different from them, which eventually became humans, did God only give a soul to Man after he became completely human?

Click to expand...

That's a theological question. Souls are a theological concept.

I'ld talk to your minister or priest. I'd imagine it's a concept that has been addressed by liberal and mainstream protestant theologians, and I'm almost certain that Catholic theologians have addressed it.

And do you think that over another thousand years Man might eventually turn back into apes

Click to expand...

There is no turning back the clock, no backwards evolution.

Man might evolve into something that resembled apes, but wouldn't turn back into one.

Whales are mammals that went back to the sea, but didn't become fish.

, or something else? I've heard from somewhere we're turning into lizards

Click to expand...

You hear some strange things. Humans are pretty static. We have a large gene pool, we intermix heavily (little to no chance for isolation), and we've removed a great many selective pressures (although we have added new social pressures).

Originally posted by CelandineBaggins
So here's a question.- If monkeys over thousands of years gave birth to animals a little different from them, which eventually became humans, did God only give a soul to Man after he became completely human?

Click to expand...

Christians who reconcile common descent with Genesis 1:26, say that God chose to give "men" souls sometime after we diverged from chimps. I doubt anyone can say wheather "men" only refers to Homo sapiens or not. I would say it is up to theological discussion as to whether related species like Homo erectus had souls. You will probably agree with me that from a Christian standpoint it doesn't matter when God gave souls, just that he did.

Your question is interesting. If you want, I can forward it to a friend of mine who is a Baptist minister and ask him what theologians say.

And do you think that over another thousand years Man might eventually turn back into apes, or something else?

Click to expand...

Humans can't turn back into apes. We are apes. Although "ape" is used in every day speach to refer to "non-human apes", scientifically it also refers to us. This is because humans, chimps, gorillas, and orgautans share common physical features. For example, we are primates that lack tails. I believe that wrists are one of the more significant features of apes. Monkeys' wrists are suited for walking around on top of branches. Our wrists are suited for swinging underneath branches. Because of the nature of these wrists, when apes walk on their hands they must use their nuckles. Try it out and see what's more confortable on your wrists. (Although, you might have to do it for a while to tell a diference, but don't hurt yourself.)

Also, next time you go to the zoo, compare the differences between how monkeys move around in trees and how oragutans do.

I've heard from somewhere we're turning into lizards.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is silly. We really can't say what evolution and the future will do to us.

Some reasons for problems with trying to say that God just did it this way (evolution)This theory is called theistic evolution and it tries to harmonize the days of creation with geologic ages. First,day "yom" in Hebrew is translated over 1200 times as a literal 24 hour day.

Secondly some scientific and scriptural objections are:
Earth created before sun, moon, and stars.
creation and distinct kinds--fixed groups--no transmutation.
plants before sun.
insects two days later than plants, no pollination.
birds before land animals.
whales and large sea creatures before land animals.
plants before animal life.
woman from the man.
matter created by God in the beginning.
oceans before land.
land plants--first life forms.

Also, death did not come until the fall/curse. Genesis 2:1-3 gives the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation). The second law of thermodynamics begins at the fall of man. Romans 5:12 and Romans 8:20-22.

Some more contradictions: Geology says that the earth's waters gradually oozed out of its interior over long ages, Genesis says that the earth was covered with water right from the beginning. (Gen 1:2) Geology says that life originated in the primeval oceans, Gen 1:11 says the first life was on the land. Geology teaches that fish and other marine organisms developed long before fruit trees, Gen 1:11, 20, 21 directly contradicts this order. Gen 1:16 says that plant life even the advanced forms such as the fruit trees was made one day before the sun and stars, but this would have been impossible if the day were really an eon, as plants must have sunlight to survive. The Bible stresses 10 times that the organisms created were to reproduce "after their kinds" evolution postulates the slow ascent of all organisms from a common ancestor.

Lots of these points contradict the Gap theory too, specifically this one: God saw everything he had made and it was very good after the creation period; geology says that most of these things did not even survive to that point, and the groaning world which did survive until man's appearance was certainly far from perfection. The Gap theory does not resolve the problem of evolution, pushing the five-billion year history of evolution back into a pre-Genesis world. This implies that God used evolutionary methods in the pre-world, and then changed to direct creative activity in the six days of "re-creation".

If a world-wide cataclysm is admitted which embraces the whole geologic column, then there is not room for the worldwide cataclysm of the great Flood, which does the same thing. Orthodox geologists of course reject an such cataclysm at all so that it is fruitless to try to accommodate the standard system of geologic ages in either considerable detail, that the Flood was a world-destroying cataclysm whereas it is completely silent with respect to a possible pre-Adamic cataclysm.

The gap theory requires the existence of pre-Adamite men, to explain the fossils of men and various "hominid" forms that have been found in the geologic, column. The Bible teaches that Adam was the "first" man (1 Cor 15:47) These fossil men are believed to have used tools and fire, buried their dead, and shown many other human characteristics, so it is alltogether arbitrary to assume they had either souls nor the hope of salvation. Most of the scientific/scriptural differences that are noted with the Day Age theory are also applicable with the Gap theory.

--------------

"Four corners" wasn't always a metaphor. We only use it as one today because we know that the world isn't a table. However, people haven't always known this.

Originally posted by npetreley
3. There are no texts that require "the 4 corners of the earth" to be taken literally. It's not a fundamental concept that is repeated throughout the Bible, and upon which related texts depend.

Click to expand...

You hold no interpretations of texts with require four courners to be talken literally. Likewise, most Christians today do not hold any interpretations of texts which require evolution to be denied.