Creationism = Flat Earth Believers

[flyingpenguin]

You get my point right?

If I say, I will give you everything I have, but I only show you a percentage of it...does it change what I actually have?

Satan promised all the kingdoms. He took Jesus to a high mountain to show him some of them. That doesn't mean that
a) the world is flat
b) that the other kingdoms don't exist.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

fp,

That's creative exegesis: the passage says that Satan showed them all to Jesus; they went up high where they could see all of them. (In reality it is likely that only one or two could be seen from any given mountain-top)... You interpret it non-literally, which is fine, no matter whether you interpret to mean he only showed some but offered all or whether you say it was a metaphorical passage or whatever else. There is no problem with that. The only problem is that some of the people who will interpret this and other "flat-earth" passages non-literally insist that the only "true" reading of Genesis is a painfully literal one.

 

[flyingpenguin]

I don't see how this verse says it is a flat earth.

You are right, you can't see all the kingdoms from a single mountain...flat earth or not...so I don't see how your point is made.

It is very possible that Satan gave a vision of all the Kingdoms. That would easily fit within the literal interpretation. Just because he took Jesus to a mountaintop doesn't remove this possibility.

I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, I do no know enough about Satan and the spiritual beings to say HOW they did the stuff it is written that they did.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

The question isn't whether they would have been able to see "all the kingdoms" of the earth from a high enough mountain if the earth was flat, but whether the author THOUGHT that a tall enough mountain would reveal all of the kindgomes of the earth. Clearly this author thought so, conveying his idea that the earth was flat. Or else the passage is not "literally" true. Even your interpretation (that it was a "vision") is not the "literal" meaning of the passage - it doesn't say he showed Jesus a "vision of". It merely says he took Jesus to the top of a mountain and showed him the kingdoms. You either take it literally (and accept that the earth is flat and the atmosphere is clear enough that from the top of a tall enough mountain all of the civilized world can be seen at one time) or you do not take it literally.

Most choose not to take this passage literally, but then go into coniptions when it is suggested that Genesis might not have been intended as a literal "textbook" account.

 

[flyingpenguin]

I think the rigidness that you put forth towards "literalness" is a little strict. Literal doesn't mean explicit. You are supposing that God MUST reveal exactly how things were done. If it doesn't say EXACTLY what was done then it wasn't done.

The verse says that Satan showed Jesus all of the kingdoms. Must it say HOW he showed all the kingdoms?

Taking this literally means that what is said actually happened (except where obvious metaphor or such is used). So it says that all the kingdoms were shown...literally, that means that Jesus saw all of the kingdoms. HOW he saw all the kingdoms isn't mentioned.

Just because the HOW isn't mentioned doesn't mean that the writer was insisting that the earth was flat, or that he believed that a single mountain overlooked the entire world.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think we are in agreement but still talking past one another. It is this same "strict, rigid" literalness that requires that God created in 6 literal rigid 24 hour periods and assumes that Genesis tells "how" God created that forces some Christians to deny the science of evolution.

Other Christians, without this "strict, rigid" literal approach are content to know that a) God created (as the Bible says He did), and b) life on earth evolved from a common ancestro (as science says it did).

Those who choose the "strict, rigid" literal interpretation of Genesis are often the first to abandon the same approach when it comes to the flat-earth verses.

 

[flyingpenguin]

Well, the problem there is, a literal interpretation can only say that God created the world in 6 literal days. That is what it says. The Bible doesn't say how He made it, but the fact that it says 6 days means 6 days.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

Is a "day" a literal "day" before there is even a sun?

03117 yowm {yome}

from an unused root meaning to be hot; TWOT - 852; n m

AV - day 2008, time 64, chronicles + 01697 37, daily 44, ever 18,

year 14, continually 10, when 10, as 10, while 8, full 8
always 4, whole 4, alway 4, misc 44; 2287

1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (pl.)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow

Emphasis mine from strongs found here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1025574983.html

 

[LouisBooth]

"Is a "day" a literal "day" before there is even a sun? "

In that context, yes I say it means a rough 24 hour period of time.

"?Is a "day" a literal "day" before there is even a sun? "

Yup. so what's your point?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Is a "day" a literal "day" before there is even a sun? "

In that context, yes I say it means a rough 24 hour period of time.

But that is just what you say, Louis. That isn't exegesis, that is assumption. Since it comes down to assumptions, why arbitrarily pick the one that conflicts with the evidence?

"?Is a "day" a literal "day" before there is even a sun? "

Yup. so what's your point?

My point is that no one is obliged to understand the word "day" when it is applied to a time before the existence of a sun to mean the same as that (English) word means now. To choose that meaning is purely a matter of choice, and given a choice between something that harmonizes the Word of God with the evidence of God's creation, and something that puts the two at odds, wouldn't it be wisest to choose the former, or at least remain unconvinced either way on that issue?  

 

[Jerry Smith]

1b2a) a working day, a day's journey

What is the duration in days, hours, or whatever human division of time, of one of God's working days?

 

[LouisBooth]

"What is the duration in days, hours, or whatever human division of time, of one of God's working days?"

Well I would say written in this context it is a man's working day, since that is what the word means...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"What is the duration in days, hours, or whatever human division of time, of one of God's working days?"

Well I would say written in this context it is a man's working day, since that is what the word means...

Why would God take a man's working day to a God's work?

Why does the definition of that word necessarily indicate a man's working day? 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Why does the definition of that word necessarily indicate a man's working day? "

the context of the story. Its all in words relevant to man...sky, heavens, sea...it is written in a simple POV...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Why does the definition of that word necessarily indicate a man's working day? "

the context of the story. Its all in words relevant to man...sky, heavens, sea...it is written in a simple POV...

The story of creation, the story of God's work, even when written from a point of view that a human might be able to get his or her mind around, doesn't necessarily mean that all of the terms in it must be interpreted in the way that they would be if it were a man doing the creating.

If the duration of a "working day" is a "working day of man, then is it true that to  "create" is to create as a man does?

01254 bara' {baw-raw'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 278; v

AV - create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1,
done 1, make fat 1; 54

1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"If the duration of a "working day" is a "working day of man, then is it true that to "create" is to create as a man does?
"

The context, in my opinion, in the hebrew context that is, means a 24 hr hour period.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If the duration of a "working day" is a "working day of man, then is it true that to "create" is to create as a man does?
"

The context, in my opinion, in the hebrew context that is, means a 24 hr hour period.

Louis, that's right. In your opinion the day is a 24 hour period. Other opinions are that it is not a 24 hour period, but has some other meaning instead (for instance, a "God's working day"). Your interpretation is at odds with the findings of science. Other opinions aren't. The point is, that nothing forces a Bible-believing Christian to choose an opinion that puts their interpretation at odds with the findings of science. The two are not irrevocably at odds.

 

[Josh]

regarding a flat earth:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html

 

[flyingpenguin]

What does put evolution and creation at odds is the basic fact that true evolution says that man came from a soup of amino acids. Creation states God created man from the earth, not from a monkey...or chimp...or whatever.

Even if a day is 1 million hours, that fact does not change. Because of this, evolution and creation are completely at odds with one another.

Now, you can't tell me that somehow you can turn "God created Adam from dust" to mean monkey.

David

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin
What does put evolution and creation at odds is the basic fact that true evolution says that man came from a soup of amino acids. Creation states God created man from the earth, not from a monkey...or chimp...or whatever.

Even if a day is 1 million hours, that fact does not change. Because of this, evolution and creation are completely at odds with one another.

Now, you can't tell me that somehow you can turn "God created Adam from dust" to mean monkey.

David

Just a matter of detail. Just because God created man from dust does not preclude the possibility that there were no intermediary stages between dust and man. "Monkey" might have been only among the most recent intermediary stages.

1) You make bread from wheat.

2) You make bread from flour.

Which is right?