Talking trees? Where is that? News to me.
As AV pointed out, it is in Judges 9. He didn't actually give a reason for not taking it literally, just a 'can you believe that?' Personally I don't see why creationists have such a problem taking it literally, after all most of them (though not AV) believe in a literal talking snake and if God can make a snake talk why not trees? But my point was not the inconsistency of Creationist interpretation, but your claim that metaphors in the bible are simply nuances. Talking trees are not a nuanced metaphor, they are full blown allegory.
The eagles wings represent something real.
I am sure they do, they paint a picture of the swiftness and power of God's deliverance from Egypt, but again it is not a nuanced metaphor, there weren't actually any eagles, wings or feathers. At the same time there is nothing in the verse to suggest it is not completely literal. Exodus 19:4
You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. God even calls the Israelites as witnesses that this is what actually happened. But it is not meant literally. The bible often speaks that way.
Don't take one verse all alone and get hung up on it. Seek other verses, and places where the eagle is written. Same with the seven headed beast. It represents something real. Something over a given time. Jesus is the door. No getting around it. He leads from this place to a heavenly forever place. The spirit is required to comprehend the bible to any great extent. Otherwise you get all twisted up, and caught up on the smallest speed bumps, and never get anywhere.
Oh I have no problem with Jesus being a door, eagles wings, or seven headed beasts. And yes they are speaking of real events and real things even if the metaphors and allegory are far from nuanced. The six day creation story also describes something very real, God's creation of the universe, even if the days are as literal as eagles wings or seven heads. What I don't understand is creationists who can accept seven headed beasts as figurative yet insist that is the six days are not literal then God is a liar and an imbecile. Somehow that just haven't grasped the ways God communicate with us.
Your idea of looking at other verse about eagles will not help you determine Exodus 19:4 is metaphorical. Sometimes an eagle is just an eagle. Not every door in the bible is a Messiah. But it is useful to examine possible meanings if the passage is metaphorical. It is also very useful to look up other references if you want to learn about the snake in Genesis, because no only do we find other references to snakes, we meet the very same snake again in the book of Revelation, only it isn't anything to do with a really clever talking animal. we are told the snake is actually Satan (Rev 12:9 & 20:2). Genesis describes the snake simply as a clever talking animal without the slightest hint it isn't an animal at all but is really a rebellious angel. Yet the curse on the snake does not apply to Satan, not literally anyhow, the bible describes him walking to and fro Job 1:7 and prowling like a lion 1 Pet 5:8. No obvious shortage of limbs there. But when we look at Ezekiel 28 we see what the snake being curse to slither on his belly really meant for Satan, that he was cast from the mountain of God and thrown down to the earth for his rebellion. The promise of redemption in Genesis isn't given literally either. The promised seed did not step on a legless snake's head. Instead Jesus redeemed us by defeating Satan on the cross. Yet throughout the whole account in, there isn't the slightest hint that the snake is anything other than an clever talking animal who had to slither on its belly because it tempted Eve. Makes the whole account of the temptation and fall one long extended metaphor.
No. It is not now stationary. It is fixed, and immovable, though.
Exactly. Pretty hard to rotate every day or orbit the sun though if it is fixed and immovable.
The heavens and earth described, however are not our present ones as is. Light does not get from stars in a week. Planetary water and land masses cannot be separated without too much heat for life to be put here days later. Etc.
An immovable earth cannot orbit the sun either and eagles did not carry the Israelites out of Egypt. The problem of light is simply not an issue when you realise as many scripture scholars did throughout church history that the days were never meant to be taken literally. However you idea that the heavens and earth described in Gen 1 are not our present heavens and earth is complete fantasy without any support in scripture or science. Why would Genesis 1:1 tell us
God created the heavens and the earth of they weren't the same the heavens and the earth we find throughout the bible? Or at least tell us the heavens and the earth back then are not the heavens and the earth we have now? Why does Revelation describe the heaven and earth we have now as the first heaven and the first earth? Rev 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. Why does Paul think we can see what God's works and what God has made from the beginning of creation? Rom 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Of course, people make decisions and commitments, not moving is a very common metaphor. Doesn't work so well with inanimate objects. There is nothing in the fixed earth verses that suggest they speaking anything other than literally, nothing that suggested to any commentator throughout church history before Copernicus that the literal interpretation was wrong.
Man had not the science at the time to realize that we were in a different state! But now we can know. God was right all along.
You are just restating your unsupported conjecture and doing nothing to answer my point.
No. A good comparison, scripture to scripture. The word is used by God in different ways, and when we look at the big picture we begin to get a grasp.
Comparing scripture to scripture does not help you. If it was that simply the church would not have had any problem with Copernicus. There are plenty of scriptures that describe a fixed earth with the sun moving around us, and not a single verse that suggests the earth rotates or orbits the sun.
The universe was not changed at the time of the flood. It was a century after as I reckon. There was a 120 year warning, and Peleg lived when the earth was split, or divided. Man's life spans grew short, and many things were different. It is clear. If you concede the future, then you are half way there. The future is the key to the past.
If you want to compare scripture with scripture, Peleg was around the time of Babel when the earth was divided up among the different nations. That is how David seems to have understood the Peleg reference.
[FONT="]Gen 10:25[FONT="]
To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan.[/FONT]The word divided
palag, only comes up 4 times in the OT, twice describing Peleg, once in Job describing rain, and by David praying to God to confuse people's language like he did at Babel [/FONT]
Psalm 55:9 Destroy, O Lord, divide their tongues; for I see violence and strife in the city.
No idea. I simply try to believe He did it His way. That way I can't go wrong, like the same state past religion.
Don't confuse God doing things his way with doing them your way. That way you are much less likely to end up calling him a liar and an imbecile.
In fact both a six day creation and fixed earth make perfect sense of the texts, the only difference is that it never occurred to anyone that the fixed earth passages were not literal before science told us the earth went round the sun. On the other hand while a six day creation made sense, so did a non literal interpretation, and there were plenty of scripture scholars throughout church history who thought it made even more sense than the literal interpretation.
It was the advent of science that began to reveal the fact that the present is not as the past.
Again no attempt to deal with what I wrote.
A deeper meaning is no longer needed. If I could not defeat the logic, and scope and reaches of science, I would look to some sort of rethinking the bible too. No need. Time to rethink science!!! God wins. Again.
I am pretty sure you could think up some groundless reason to reject heliocentrism and even a round earth too if you set your mind to it too. You are pretty imaginative and a complete lack of supporting evidence does not bother you. But fantasies don't count as defeating science. Again you are choosing arbitrarily which sciences to accept and finding a deeper meaning to scripture instead of the literal meaning which is contradicted by modern science, and arbitrarily deciding to 'defeat' other sciences in you imagination so you don't have to question your literal interpretation. It just does not make sense.