Answers In Genesis Teaching contrary doctrines to Scripture!

[_Paladin_]

According to Answersingenesis, Our galaxy belongs in the center of the universe according to scripture.

It is encouraging to see this evidence for the centrality of humans to the plan of God. It was a sin on this planet that subjected the entire universe to groaning and travailing (Romans 8:22). Ours is the planet where the Second Person of the Trinity took on the (human) nature of one of His creatures to redeem not only us, but also the entire cosmos (Romans 8:21). This knowledge that God gave minuscule mankind prime real estate in a vast cosmos astounds and awes us, as Psalm 8:3–4

But is this biblical? I think the answer is no.


Did God use A great empire like babylon to reveal his power through? No he used a small nation of slaves. Did God use a Great orator, or mighty noble to speak to pharaoh? No he used moses the Child of a hebrew slave and outcast from Egypt Did God use a mighty warrior to slay a giant who was slandering his name? no he used a Shepherd Boy. Did God use A palace and great household of a king for his child to be born? No he had him born in a barn. God called the Shepherds to spread the good news before the wisemen came.

so is it likely according to scripture that God would chose the bright center of the universe to reveal his greatest glory... no.

1 Cor 1:27 "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

 

[Antman_05]

No one is perfect but i would have to say that Answers in Genesis are the closest to the Truth, and thus the bible, of Course not all their stuff will be perfect as they are also Human.

 

[_Paladin_]

Perhaps you should look hard into other aspects of their theology as well then.

 

[Dark Matter]

Paladin, I read the quote you posted but do not see where it says that earth is in the center of anything.

The idea that earth is "prime real estate" seems to speak more of fine design and attention that God took in creating earth to sustain human life. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

The greater problem with that quote is the connection of human sin with cosmologic redemption.

DM

 

[Delta One]

Paladin,

You have not proven that their thinking is unBiblical. You have just introduced your own opinion (with flaws that I will show in a minute) and called upon a single verse for "support".

For one, there is a difference between people and a location. Dr Humphreys out lines a few Biblical verses that support his ideas about the earth being either at, or near, the centre of the universe. I'll quote his work here:

"Since I've brought up the centre of deep several times, let's consider it more carefully. Notice the words "in the midst" in Genesis 1:6:

... Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters ...

The correstponding Hebrew word is [betok], which is the preposition "in", combined with the noun (tawek) who primary meaning is "midst, middle", "midst ... of a space or place". The middle of a sphere is its centre, so the expanse must have started in the vicnity of the centre. I say "in the vicinity" in order to leave some room for the approximate nature of the phrase.

Another clue is the word "below" in Genesis 1:7:

... and separated the waters below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse ...

The Hebrew translated word "below" is mittachath, which consists of the prposition [min], "from," combined with the adjective [tachath], meaning "under, beneath". This word, along with "above,' confirms that gravity was operating. It also suggests that the centre of gravity was within the waters below, providing supporting evidence for the idea that the waters below were at or near the centre.

Now lets consider in Genesis 1:9,10 what the "waters below the expanse" of the heavens became:

Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

At this point, the waters below have become the continent(s) and seas of our own planet. Therefore during creation week, the earth was at or near the cntre of the universe. (I find nothing in the context to say that the earth was motionless with respect to the centre, so it may have moved away from the centre a bit since that time).

1 Cor 1:27 "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

Notice the word "world".

Btw, AiG have said that although this theory is promising, like all man made theories, it is fallible...

 

[_Paladin_]

You folks need to look at the website i linked the Title is

Our galaxy—at the center of the universe after all!

 

[PaladinValer]

More reasons for me not to trust AiG...

 

[Vance]

I don't trust AiG on science issue simply because they admit right up front that they are not going to do their scientific research in a scientific way. When you start with the conclusion and go out and seek support, you are no longer doing science, and the results will not be scientifically sound. They are doing apologetics and calling it science.

 

[_Paladin_]

I don't trust AiG on science issue simply because they admit right up front that they are not going to do their scientific research in a scientific way. When you start with the conclusion and go out and seek support, you are no longer doing science, and the results will not be scientifically sound. They are doing apologetics and calling it science.

Exactly!

 

[ChrisS]

Well, even if it does, I don't rely on it for my views or arguements and neither should anyone else, scripture provides the answers in the end.

 

[Vance]

Well, even if it does, I don't rely on it for my views or arguements and neither should anyone else, scripture provides the answers in the end.

Yes, Scripture does provide every answer to the questions it was meant to answer. If it was not meant to answer the questions of the exact timing and process by which God created, then it will not tell us that, any more than it tells us about quantam physics. Scripture is the holy and inerrant message from God to Mankind, and everything it tells us is true. What we have to do is determine what questions it is answering.

Kind of like Hitchiker's answer of 42. Movie out today, btw.

I think the best approach is to consider that it is answering questions theology, relationship and instruction. It is not an attempt at explaining science or, in many cases, strict literal history.

 

[ChrisS]

Yes, Scripture does provide every answer to the questions it was meant to answer. If it was not meant to answer the questions of the exact timing and process by which God created, then it will not tell us that, any more than it tells us about quantam physics. Scripture is the holy and inerrant message from God to Mankind, and everything it tells us is true. What we have to do is determine what questions it is answering.

Kind of like Hitchiker's answer of 42. Movie out today, btw.

I think the best approach is to consider that it is answering questions theology, relationship and instruction. It is not an attempt at explaining science or, in many cases, strict literal history.

You know, other than the chapters relationg to orgin, I don't hear anyone claiming the Mathew was just a story. Why is your interpreation correct? The Bible addresses the BIG issuse such as when, and why, and in how much time, and, well, gemesis in general. No reason why it could just be a story.

 

[Vance]

You know, other than the chapters relationg to orgin, I don't hear anyone claiming the Mathew was just a story. Why is your interpreation correct? The Bible addresses the BIG issuse such as when, and why, and in how much time, and, well, gemesis in general. No reason why it could just be a story.

There are many, many genres of literary style in Scripture. You have poetry, parable, symbolism, allegory, epic and, yes, literal history. The problem many fundamentalists have is that they see the Bible as a single literary text because it is all inspired by God and it is all bound in a single volume. In actuality, it was inspired by God to be written over a 2,000 year period by dozens of different authors, with different purposes and styles and genres.

You don't read Matthew the same as Job or Song of Solomon, or Revelation the same as Chronicles. They are all different and must be considered individually as to what style and genre it is written in. It is ALL TRUE and inerrant, I agree with that. But that does not at all mean it is all meant to be read as strict literal history. Do you really think that Genesis 1 reads the same as Acts? Of course not. To me, neither of the creation accounts sound the least little bit like an attempt at literal history, so why should I read it that way? Why would strict literal history be some sort of "default" unless you are convinced otherwise? I value each of the various styles of the presentation of truth.

I don't say that if God wrote Genesis 1 as a figurative account of what happened rather than writing it as strict historical narrative I am going to refuse to read it the way He intended.

The reason why I think it was written as a figurative rendition has been given many times on these forums, and I am sure you will come across it. but if not, let me know and I will tell you why I think so.

 

[ChrisS]

There are many, many genres of literary style in Scripture. You have poetry, parable, symbolism, allegory, epic and, yes, literal history. The problem many fundamentalists have is that they see the Bible as a single literary text because it is all inspired by God and it is all bound in a single volume. In actuality, it was inspired by God to be written over a 2,000 year period by dozens of different authors, with different purposes and styles and genres.

You don't read Matthew the same as Job or Song of Solomon, or Revelation the same as Chronicles. They are all different and must be considered individually as to what style and genre it is written in. It is ALL TRUE and inerrant, I agree with that. But that does not at all mean it is all meant to be read as strict literal history. Do you really think that Genesis 1 reads the same as Acts? Of course not. To me, neither of the creation accounts sound the least little bit like an attempt at literal history, so why should I read it that way? Why would strict literal history be some sort of "default" unless you are convinced otherwise? I value each of the various styles of the presentation of truth.

I don't say that if God wrote Genesis 1 as a figurative account of what happened rather than writing it as strict historical narrative I am going to refuse to read it the way He intended.

The reason why I think it was written as a figurative rendition has been given many times on these forums, and I am sure you will come across it. but if not, let me know and I will tell you why I think so.

Because of the way it was written in the original language?

How do you know hebrew is the original language?

 

[Vance]

Because of the way that cultures in the ancient near east wrote their stories about their past. I have a degree in ancient history and have studied ancient cultures and their literature. The simple fact is that, at the time the two creation accounts were first told, and then later written, stories about the past were not written as strict literal historical narrative. Not in the least. No one hearing such a story about the past would expect it to be strict historical narrative, so why should we assume that it was written that way? Why in the world should we treat an ANE text the way we would treat a modern history? Or even a history from the time of Christ (2,000 years later)?

 

[ChrisS]

Because of the way that cultures in the ancient near east wrote their stories about their past. I have a degree in ancient history and have studied ancient cultures and their literature. The simple fact is that, at the time the two creation accounts were first told, and then later written, stories about the past were not written as strict literal historical narrative. Not in the least. No one hearing such a story about the past would not expect it to be strict historical narrative, so why should we assume that it was written that way? Why in the world should we treat an ANE text the way we would treat a modern history? Or even a history from the time of Christ (2,000 years later)?

Becaue the people around then are still around today, the Jews, they may have changed alot, but there interpretaton is a literal one. In Jesus's time it was literal, and before then it was probably literal. Jesus spreaks of it as literal. Paul does, and so on.

 

[Vance]

Becaue the people around then are still around today, the Jews, they may have changed alot, but there interpretaton is a literal one. In Jesus's time it was literal, and before then it was probably literal. Jesus spreaks of it as literal. Paul does, and so on.

First of all, what evidence do you have that ANE cultures in 2,000 BC would have read those texts as literal history? I have plenty of evidence that they would not have. Have you studied those cultures from that time period and their literature? You don't think they changed much in 4,000 years? Or even in the 2,000 years to the time of Christ?

Second, no, it was not entirely literal at the time of Jesus and Paul. Jesus and Paul refer to the past exactly the way a person would do if it was a figurative account in that culture. Even 400 years later, Augustine believed that the six days were not literal 24 hour days.

 

[ChrisS]

First of all, what evidence do you have that ANE cultures in 2,000 BC would have read those texts as literal history? I have plenty of evidence that they would not have. Have you studied those cultures from that time period and their literature? You don't think they changed much in 4,000 years? Or even in the 2,000 years to the time of Christ?

Second, no, it was not entirely literal at the time of Jesus and Paul. Jesus and Paul refer to the past exactly the way a person would do if it was a figurative account in that culture. Even 400 years later, Augustine believed that the six days were not literal 24 hour days.

I have the Bible . Have you studied greek in it's original language?

 

[Vance]

I have the Bible . Have you studied greek in it's original language?

I am not sure what you mean by "greek in its original language".

I have studied much of the NT Greek, yes. I am not an expert in Greek by any means, however.

But that is not the issue. The issue is who were the people God inspired to write the various books of the Bible, and even the stories within those books. What culture did they come from? What style of writing did they favor? How did they tell about the past? What would they have considered a valid and valuable way of conveying the truths about past events?

 

[ChrisS]

I am not sure what you mean by "greek in its original language".

I have studied much of the NT Greek, yes. I am not an expert in Greek by any means, however.

But that is not the issue. The issue is who were the people God inspired to write the various books of the Bible, and even the stories within those books. What culture did they come from? What style of writing did they favor? How did they tell about the past? What would they have considered a valid and valuable way of conveying the truths about past events?

I mean the Bible in greek, play with your kids, don't by any means stop playing with them to come on here, enjoy eacother while you have eachother, of course I need to follow that advice myself. Paul was a devout Jew, and later in his life he some how learn't greek, probably to preach. Does the greek interpretation of the NT support your claims?