Deceiving the Nations.

[Deamiter]

It isn’t until you introduce something new and foreign that you are going to get something different. Where does that foreign substance come from? It has to be new and different enough to effect change but not too foreign or different as to effect character and consistency. Blue paint matches that description because it shares most of the characteristics and consistency of yellow paint and can therefore be easily absorbed into it. Sure you can change the color of the paint by introducing a small variation over a long period of time but remember in the end you’ve still got paint. It hasn’t somehow become water or oil for example. That’s what I see as adaptation not evolution.

Amazingly this buildup of small adaptations is exactly what we see in nature, and equally you're absolutely right that it will never become oil.

I'll address the second point first -- a mammal will never become a non-mammal. The first mammal was a species that had just changed enough to be called "green" instead of yellow. Since that first mammal, many MANY different populations have accumulated enough differences to become considered different species, but every single organism that descended from the first mammal is STILL a mammal and always will be a mammal. That's why we have different types of classifications -- i.e. kingdoms, species etc... This is basic to evolution, and something creationists frequently misrepresent or don't understand, so if that doesn't make sense to you, please stop here.

Now mutations are almost by definition "new and different." They change an organism's DNA, and an accumulation of changes can lead to a whole lot of large differences! Further, as before, it's still paint -- you're not introducing new amino acids or anything, the changes are solely within the existing framework of DNA.

In nature, we do actually see large changes that are the product of small variations (or to speak from your point of view, could conceivably be the product of many small variations). I love the example of the nerve that controlls our swallowing and voicbox -- in all mammals it travels from our brain, down around an artery near the heart and then back to the throat. In fish, this is the fastest route, but in humans it's clearly not the most efficient (in giraffes, it really does travel all the way down and back up their necks!) This makes very little sense in terms of special creation, but it's exactly what you'd expect to find if we evolved from fish (or ancestors of fish). The nerve can't make one of the large changes you talk about, so it can't just disconnect itself and move to the other side of the artery. Small changes in brain placement and neck size have accumulated to leave us an important clue.

Similarly with hearts -- fish hearts have only one chamber that pumps blood throughout the body. There are amphibians that have semi-sectioned hearts that generally direct flow, to and from the lung with a seperate section, and mammals have two totally distinct paths going to and from the lungs.

There are literally hundreds of little stories like this where a long series of what you would rightly call adaptation build up to account for end products that look very different. I mean, if we'd never seen amphibian hearts, it might be very convincing to say, "how could a single-chambered heart adapt slowly to a 4-chambered heart?!?" A careful study of the many structures that are present today, however, tells the story of how it's not only possible, but that it actually happened.

 

[vossler]

Lots of interesting stuff Deamiter, given that I'm not a scientist I'll focus on these two statements that appear to conflict with one another.

a mammal will never become a non-mammal.

Yet below you imply that a fish became a mammal.

This makes very little sense in terms of special creation, but it's exactly what you'd expect to find if we evolved from fish (or ancestors of fish).

How do you reconcile this?

 

[Mallon]

Yet below you imply that a fish became a mammal.

I don't think you understand yet how nested hierarchies work or how modern biologists classify organisms. Mammals are descended from a specific group of fish called sarcopterygians, and are thus "sarcopterygian fish" themselves. There's a great primer on evolution here, if you're genuinely interested in learning what the theory actually says:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
(Incidentally, mammals are also eukaryotes, animals, deuterostromes, chordates, vertebrates, gnathostomes, tetrapods, amniotes, synapsids, etc., etc., etc.)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Lots of interesting stuff Deamiter, given that I'm not a scientist I'll focus on these two statements that appear to conflict with one another.

Yet below you imply that a fish became a mammal.

How do you reconcile this?

No conflict at all, really... A mammal has never evolved into a non-mammal, but non-mammals have evolved into mammals.

This particular evolutionary train only travels in one direction.

 

[gluadys]

I see the point you’re trying to make but here’s what I see. If you mix yellow and yellow you’re always going to get yellow no matter how many times you repeat the same exercise. It isn’t until you introduce something new and foreign that you are going to get something different. Where does that foreign substance come from? It has to be new and different enough to effect change but not too foreign or different as to effect character and consistency. Blue paint matches that description because it shares most of the characteristics and consistency of yellow paint and can therefore be easily absorbed into it. Sure you can change the color of the paint by introducing a small variation over a long period of time but remember in the end you’ve still got paint.

And, as Deamiter pointed out, mutations match that description too. The character of the DNA does not change; the genes still produce amino acids and proteins. They just produce them in a slightly different way that leads to small variations in gene expression.

It hasn’t somehow become water or oil for example. That’s what I see as adaptation not evolution.

Well we have been through this before. Evolution leads to adaptation (or at least some evolution leads to adaptation). And as far as I know, nothing else leads to adaptation. When you can show me a different mechanism for species adaptation than evolution, you have the right to separate them. Not before.

My point is though, regardless of the frame of reference the interpretation of Scripture is the same.

Not the literal interpretations. In fact from a heliocentric perspective there cannot be a literal interpretation.

I would put it this way, rejecting scientific interpretations stem from the demand that Scripture is always true.

That would only invalidate scientific interpretations that are not true. Generally speaking though, scripture deals so little with science that you cannot discriminate between a true and a false scientific statement using scripture as a interpretive lens. Scripture was of no use, for example, in showing the inadequacy of the humour theory of disease or the phlogisten theory of fire or even the alchemical theory of the transmutation of metals.

I’m sorry but I think that is an incredibly arrogant statement.

I am sorry for you if factual statements come across as arrogant.

We can say we believe we know the age of the earth based on the best data we have, but to say that we know, well that’s over the top. There have been countless man-made things measured over the years where it’s age has changed numerous times, some of these things sometimes not even a hundred years old and we don’t really know its age. For us to make a bold claim that we know the age of the earth is extremely arrogant and says a lot about our culture.

Do we have any example of where a new estimate of the age of the earth was shown to be less accurate than a fomer estimate of its age? Or has each succeeding estimate been more accurate? We do know for a certainty that the earth is more than 4 billion years old. We know that the probability that it is 4.5 billion years old is within a fraction of a % of its true age. Maybe it is actually 4.495 billion years or maybe 4.524 billion years. But 4.5 is as accurate a measurement as we can get with current technology. And it is accurate enough that newer technology is not going to change it much.

What seems arrogant to me is the refusal to accept the facts. A scientist must always subordinate his opinions to the evidence. But you claim the right to stand in judgment of the evidence. Which is really more arrogant?

Another statement that is outlandish. If only you would substitute the word creator in place of ancestor, then you would have something worthy of saying.

That would not be accurate. The Creator is not the common ancestor. However, there is no reason to choose between one and the other. All life forms have both a Creator and a common ancestor.

Oh yes we are asked to believe this evidence more strongly than the Word of God. Scripture clearly tells us what God did and how long it took Him, ‘science’ challenges both and asks us to believe it.

Science doesn't challenge scripture at all, much less the Word of God. Science interprets a revelation of God which we call nature or creation. When it does so rightly, then, if it conflicts with our view of scripture, it is our view of scripture that must be brought into conformity with the Word of God written in creation.

Let’s just be clear about something, I will never extrapolate meaning from Scripture that contradicts its plain meaning unless there is incredibly strong evidence within the context of all of Scripture to allow it. I certainly wouldn’t extrapolate Scripture to teach something that clearly isn’t being taught.

Yet, in the case of heliocentricity and the movement of the earth, you do exactly that. It is not clearly taught in scripture. If anything, scripture appears to contradict it. And it doesn't help to bring in the context of all scripture because there is nothing within the whole context of scripture to support heliocentricity. You rely entirely on extra-biblical knowledge, scientific knowledge, for your cosmological understanding, and it is within this scientific, not scriptural, context that you choose to interpret the passages of scripture whose plain meaning appears to contradict it.

This is no different from Hugh Ross using our scientific knowledge of the age of the earth to interpret scripture from the perspective of Old-Earth Creationism. It is no different from TEs using our scientific knowledge of evolution to interpret scripture from the perspective of evolution and common ancestry.

Genesis 3: 17-19 gives a good framework:

And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."​

And Genesis 2:15 says
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.

Just wanted to be sure we are not taking work itself to be a curse instituted with the fall.

But earlier you said the six days of creation were tied to the work doctrine. Neither of these passages ties the six days to work. Nor do I know of any passage that does so, except within the context of Sabbath.

So the question still stands. Why cannot the six days be interpreted as freely as Sabbath is, for Sabbath is not interpreted to mean just one day.

 

[gluadys]

Lots of interesting stuff Deamiter, given that I'm not a scientist I'll focus on these two statements that appear to conflict with one another.

Yet below you imply that a fish became a mammal.

How do you reconcile this?

As mallon says, it is a matter of understanding nested hierarchies. What evolution does is segment populations into different species, and then segment these into more different species, and then segment these again. So whatever nest you begin with, you can divide it and get a number of smaller nests. But all these are still in the larger nest. When a smaller nest is subdivided, all of the smaller segments in this nest are in both the smaller nest and in the larger nest it is inside of.

Animals are a large nest. All descendants of the first animals are animals. They never change into plants or fungi. Within it you have a nest called Bilateria--all animals with a head end, a tail end and a left and right side that are mirror images of each other. All descendants of Bilateria are Bilateria, and also animals.

Within Bilateria there is a nest called Coelomata--animals that have three layers of tissue, one on the outside, one lining the gut and one in-between which forms the internal organs. There is also a hollow between the gut and the skin for the internal organs to fill. All descendants of Ceolomates are Coelomates.

Among Coelomates, there are two large nests: Protostomia and Deuterostomia. No descendant of a Deuterostome is ever a Protostome and vice versa. But they are all coelomates, bilaterians and animals.

Do you see how each new nest is a part of the one it came from? And all species in the smallest nest are also part of all the larger nests.

So we can then go on. Some Deuterostomes are Chordates, and some Chordates are Vertebrates and some Vertebrates have jaws (Gnathostomes) and some jawed vertebrates are fish. Some fish are Sarcopterygians, some Sarcopterygians are tetrapods (four-limbed animals with digits i.e. fingers and toes). Some tetrapods developed an amniotic egg so they no longer needed to return to an aquatic environment to reproduce. Some amniotes are Synapsids and some Synapsids are mammals. So mammals are in a group within a group within a group within a group within a group within a group known as fish. In effect they are fish modified for a terrestrial life.

But there is no going in reverse. When some mammals re-adapted to aquatic life, even taking on a fish-like appearance, they did not turn back into fish. They are still mammals (whales and dolphins). Evolution never takes a descendant out of a nest it is already in.

That is why mammals (a relatively small nest) can have fish (a large nest containing the smaller nest) as ancestors, but will never have descendants that are not mammals.

 

[vossler]

Generally speaking though, scripture deals so little with science that you cannot discriminate between a true and a false scientific statement using scripture as a interpretive lens.

On this I agree, but where it does speak Scripture is supreme.

What seems arrogant to me is the refusal to accept the facts. A scientist must always subordinate his opinions to the evidence. But you claim the right to stand in judgment of the evidence. Which is really more arrogant?

It all depends on what constitutes evidence. For evolutionists the bar appears to be very low. For me it is set very high, especially when you are attempting to counter the plain reading of Scripture.

That would not be accurate. The Creator is not the common ancestor. However, there is no reason to choose between one and the other. All life forms have both a Creator and a common ancestor.

You said “We do have evidence that makes it very highly probable (as in better than 90% probable) that all life on earth today is related through a common ancestor.” I said to substitute creator for ancestor and then you've got something to say and you reply “The Creator is not the common ancestor”

Science doesn't challenge scripture at all, much less the Word of God. Science interprets a revelation of God which we call nature or creation. When it does so rightly, then, if it conflicts with our view of scripture, it is our view of scripture that must be brought into conformity with the Word of God written in creation.

I like how we’re now calling or equating creation with the Word of God.

Yet, in the case of heliocentricity and the movement of the earth, you do exactly that. It is not clearly taught in scripture. If anything, scripture appears to contradict it.

You’re right it isn’t taught, nor does Scripture teach anything concerning this subject.

But earlier you said the six days of creation were tied to the work doctrine. Neither of these passages ties the six days to work. Nor do I know of any passage that does so, except within the context of Sabbath.

That’s because the primary Scripture that sets the tone is included in the context of the Sabbath. There are a number of teachings that have only one direct verse making it responsible for a specific doctrine; does that mean they to are not valid? How many scriptural verses does it take for a doctrine to be legitimate?

So the question still stands. Why cannot the six days be interpreted as freely as Sabbath is, for Sabbath is not interpreted to mean just one day.

Because I don’t freely interpret things like you might. If one is looking to freely interpret Scripture without much of any restraint then it’s no great surprise when its interpretation becomes a free for all where almost anything goes.

 

[vossler]

Do you see how each new nest is a part of the one it came from? And all species in the smallest nest are also part of all the larger nests.

Gotcha!

But there is no going in reverse. When some mammals re-adapted to aquatic life, even taking on a fish-like appearance, they did not turn back into fish. They are still mammals (whales and dolphins). Evolution never takes a descendant out of a nest it is already in.

That is why mammals (a relatively small nest) can have fish (a large nest containing the smaller nest) as ancestors, but will never have descendants that are not mammals.

I better understand the theory. Thanks!

 

[gluadys]

On this I agree, but where it does speak Scripture is supreme.

Actually it is the Word of God which is supreme.

You said “We do have evidence that makes it very highly probable (as in better than 90% probable) that all life on earth today is related through a common ancestor.” I said to substitute creator for ancestor and then you've got something to say and you reply “The Creator is not the common ancestor”

What's puzzling? God is our spiritual father, not our biological father. So you cannot simply substitute "creator" for "ancestor". But you can have both. Just as you have both a biological father and a Father in heaven.

I like how we’re now calling or equating creation with the Word of God.

Strictly speaking, neither scripture nor creation is the Word of God or equal to the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God.

But both scripture and creation come from the Word; scripture by inspiration and creation by --well--creation. That is why neither can trump the other. It would be like saying that when the Word of God is incorrect, it must be corrected by the Word of God. Clearly a nonsensical proposition.

That’s because the primary Scripture that sets the tone is included in the context of the Sabbath.

How do you decide when a text is primary and when it is not? Isn't this another instance of human interpretation?

There are a number of teachings that have only one direct verse making it responsible for a specific doctrine; does that mean they to are not valid? How many scriptural verses does it take for a doctrine to be legitimate?

As many as there are. When there is more than one text that applies, a legitimate doctrine takes them all into account and formulates a teaching that is consistent with all of them. That is the same standard that applies in science. A theory is legitimate when it takes all the available evidence into account and offers an interpretation that consistently explains all of it.

Because I don’t freely interpret things like you might. If one is looking to freely interpret Scripture without much of any restraint then it’s no great surprise when its interpretation becomes a free for all where almost anything goes.

Even when scripture itself takes the lead? After all, it was the inspired writers of scripture which provided the many meanings of "sabbath".

 

[gluadys]

Gotcha!
I better understand the theory. Thanks!

 

[theFijian]

I like how we’re now calling or equating creation with the Word of God.

As has been already said, Christ is the Word of God. Creation and scripture are both partial revelations of God.

 

[busterdog]

That's a big fat lie and you know it vossler. Geocentrism is the plain teaching of the bible and fundamentally consistent with your hermeneutic for Genesis 1. To ignore this plain teaching of scripture is utterly hypocritical.

Well, let's see how you prove that. Seperate thread? I have never seen a hermeneutic that distinguishes between metaphor and history from your perspective, unless you simply take mainstream science as your hermeneutic. That is, if it disagrees with science, its metaphor, except where the scientists can make hay of it, as with the geocentrism argument. The biggest canard for the YEC/TE debate is geocentrism.

In Isaiah, the distinction is made between graven images and a living God. In this context, God is the one who sits on the circle of the earth. As a point of the comparison, again it would be rather bold to assume that God is literally sitting at that point on the planet where Christopher Columbus was supposed to plummet off of the edge. I mean, that really is the most "literal" reading.

Isa 40:20 He that [is] so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree [that] will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, [that] shall not be moved.

Isa 40:21 ¶ Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

TE really needs to make its case here for a half-metaphorical and half-literal intent in the text. It must take the circle part literally and the sitting part metaphorically, since everyone knows that no scribe was stupid enough to think that God literally sat at the edge of the earth. TE must arbitrarily interpret even here to avoid absurdity.

And of course, the context is clear. The point of the verse is not the shape of the earth, it is a comparison of the glory of lumps of wood (very little) and the living God (quite a bit).

As for the "circle", you may remember the medeival conundrum that was intended as a device to describe God: a circle who circumference is infinite and whose center is everywhere. Geometrically speaking, the metaphor of the circle in Isaiah is probably a little more than mere "metaphor." Where is the circle of the earth? Well, actually it is everywhere on the earth. YOu are always on someone's horizon, so to speak. So, where is God?

So, is that a mere description of geocentrism? Please.

If Isaiah is so plainly wrong about cosmology, why can't Genesis 2 be just as "wrong"? Why do you accept so-called surface text here to support your anti-inerrant agenda here, but the TE camp denies there is a YEC surface text in Gen. 2? Seems inconsistent to me.

 

[vossler]

Actually it is the Word of God which is supreme.

I guess I was wrong and we don’t really agree.

How do you decide when a text is primary and when it is not? Isn't this another instance of human interpretation?

Ultimately, isn’t everything an instance of human interpretation?

As many as there are. When there is more than one text that applies, a legitimate doctrine takes them all into account and formulates a teaching that is consistent with all of them. That is the same standard that applies in science. A theory is legitimate when it takes all the available evidence into account and offers an interpretation that consistently explains all of it.

Good at least you don’t prescribe to the theory that one isn’t enough.

Even when scripture itself takes the lead?

Scripture itself is it’s own best constraint.

 

[vossler]

That's a big fat lie and you know it vossler. Geocentrism is the plain teaching of the bible and fundamentally consistent with your hermeneutic for Genesis 1. To ignore this plain teaching of scripture is utterly hypocritical.

You know for someone who's on your ignore list you sure can't help look and respond.

I haven't seen anything that addresses geocentrism as any sort of plain teaching. Obviously it appears you have, if so are you telling us you don't follow the plain teachings of the Bible?

 

[Mallon]

Well, let's see how you prove that.

I think the easiest way to show that would be for theFijian to cite as many passages as he can in favour of flat-earth geocentrism, and for you to cite as many passages as you can in favour of round-earth heliocentrism.
Does it not strike you as a little odd that every biblical passage made in reference to the shape of the earth describes it as being flat or immobile?
Perhaps you, too, could explain (in a new thread?) what makes Job 38:13-14; Isaiah 40:22; Matthew 4:8; 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Job 9:6, 38:4; Psalm 75:3, 96:10, 104:5; Genesis 7:11, 8:2; Deuteronomy 28:12; 2 Kings 7:2; Job 37:18; Malachi 3:10; Joshua 10:12; Psalm 19:4-6; Ecclesiastes 1:5 all so obviously metaphorical.
It strikes me that many YECs are quite embarassed about the pre-Enlightenment literal use of the Scriptures to support geocentrism -- so much so that they will simply deny it ever happened! (Or deny the involvement of the Holy Spirit.)

 

[Mallon]

Speaking of being inconsistent...

TE really needs to make its case here for a half-metaphorical and half-literal intent in the text... TE must arbitrarily interpret even here to avoid absurdity.

Is this not the same exact thing YECs do with the opening chapters of Genesis? Literal Adam and Eve; metaphorical snake? You might lay the same charge against yourself!

 

[busterdog]

Speaking of being inconsistent...

Is this not the same exact thing YECs do with the opening chapters of Genesis? Literal Adam and Eve; metaphorical snake? You might lay the same charge against yourself!

Well, that is indeed a matter that needs to be addressed.

The extent to which we have mixed metaphor and literalism is not clear for YECs, nor anyone else.

But, two wrongs don't make a right.

And geocentrism is far easier as a matter of literary criticism. What is on the table is really inerrancy. The confusion we all share with Gen. 3. does not impact inerrancy directly. The issue of geocentrism does.

 

[busterdog]

I think the easiest way to show that would be for theFijian to cite as many passages as he can in favour of flat-earth geocentrism, and for you to cite as many passages as you can in favour of round-earth heliocentrism.
Does it not strike you as a little odd that every biblical passage made in reference to the shape of the earth describes it as being flat or immobile?
Perhaps you, too, could explain (in a new thread?) what makes Job 38:13-14; Isaiah 40:22; Matthew 4:8; 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Job 9:6, 38:4; Psalm 75:3, 96:10, 104:5; Genesis 7:11, 8:2; Deuteronomy 28:12; 2 Kings 7:2; Job 37:18; Malachi 3:10; Joshua 10:12; Psalm 19:4-6; Ecclesiastes 1:5 all so obviously metaphorical.
It strikes me that many YECs are quite embarassed about the pre-Enlightenment literal use of the Scriptures to support geocentrism -- so much so that they will simply deny it ever happened! (Or deny the involvement of the Holy Spirit.)

Perhaps a new thread. We will take them one at a time. I am not any more embarrassed about dealing with supposed geocentrism than the Chief was applying the pillow to Randall Patrick Murphy. (One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.)

 

[Mallon]

But, two wrongs don't make a right.

Why must a passage containing both factual history and metaphor be "wrong"?

What is on the table is really inerrancy. The confusion we all share with Gen. 3. does not impact inerrancy directly. The issue of geocentrism does.

Biblical inerrancy on matters of science is only an issue for the small Christian subsect that is YECism. Other Christians got over the matter hundreds of years ago. The Bible wasn't written 3000-2000 years ago with 21st century science on the minds of the authors! The Scriptures were written to convey spiritual truths with spiritual words (1 Corinthians 2:13), not scientific truths with scientific words. It is on matters of the spirit -- the very reason for which the Scriptures were written -- that the Bible is inerrant.

 

[gluadys]

Well, let's see how you prove that. Seperate thread? I have never seen a hermeneutic that distinguishes between metaphor and history from your perspective, unless you simply take mainstream science as your hermeneutic. That is, if it disagrees with science, its metaphor, except where the scientists can make hay of it, as with the geocentrism argument. The biggest canard for the YEC/TE debate is geocentrism.

I think you are overlooking the fact that TEs do consider the geocentric passages in the bible to be non-literal. The point is, why do YECs consider them non-literal? Again and again YECs defend their view on the age of the earth, the literal reality of the six days of Genesis 1, the historical reality of Adam and Eve and of the global extent of the Genesis flood on the basis that a literal or plain reading of scripture is always to be used except where scripture itself indicates otherwise.

So within this literal framework they can consistently treat the snake in the garden as non-literal (though not all do) because other scriptural references make it clear the snake is a figure of Satan. And certainly the crushing of the snake's head by the seed of the woman is not considered a literal event, but a description of Christ vanquishing Satan.

But where is the equivalent scriptural support for not interpreting the flat, immobile earth in a geo-centric cosmos literally?

It simply doesn't exist.

Yet the vast majority of YECs do not interpret these passages literally. What has happened to the hermeneutic of preferentially using a literal interpretation unless scripture (not science or anything else--scripture) indicates otherwise?

If YECs were applying their declared hermeneutic consistently, they would have no choice but to defend geo-centrism.

But most YECs, just like TEs, consider the scientific evidence for the shape and mobility of the earth and the organization of the solar system--and interpret these passages accordingly.

TEs just go farther in the same direction. And why not. If sound science, not scripture, is a sufficient basis for not interpreting geo-centric passages literally, why is it not an equally sufficient basis for rejecting a young earth, a literal six-day creation and the global extent of Noah's flood?

Sound science, after all, reflects an understanding of God's created world, and so is grounded in one of the two great revelations God has given us.

If a revelation in one part of scripture can elucidate another part of scripture, why cannot another source of God-given revelation do the same? Most YECs agree that it is permissible for scripture to be re-interpreted in light of the knowledge that the earth is spherical, mobile and orbits the sun. Yet they reject knowledge that is just as scientifically valid as a basis for reinterpreting other scripture.

This is the inconsistency that a focus on the geo-centric passages of scripture brings out.

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

I am glad you included the second half of the verse. Many YECs avoid it, just referring to the circle of the earth. But the whole context clearly indicates a flat earth if interpreted literally.

TE really needs to make its case here for a half-metaphorical and half-literal intent in the text.

No, since that is not the TE position. The TE position is that it is not literal at all. It is YECs who need to make the case for not reading this text literally since there is no scriptural indication that it is to be read otherwise.

And of course, the context is clear. The point of the verse is not the shape of the earth, it is a comparison of the glory of lumps of wood (very little) and the living God (quite a bit).

And that point is made with a reference to a flat, geo-centric immobile earth. If the principal point here is sufficient to let go of a literal reading of the verse, why is the principal point of a hymn in praise of the Creator setting him above all created works and all false gods not sufficient to let go of a literal, recent, six-day creation?

You see, all we are looking for is some consistency in the application of YEC hermeneutics.

So, is that a mere description of geocentrism? Please.

It is not a mere description of geocentrism, any more that "six days" is a mere description of creation. But it is geocentrism, and literally interpreted it cannot be anything else.

If Isaiah is so plainly wrong about cosmology, why can't Genesis 2 be just as "wrong"? Why do you accept so-called surface text here to support your anti-inerrant agenda here, but the TE camp denies there is a YEC surface text in Gen. 2? Seems inconsistent to me.

Isaiah is only wrong about cosmology if one insists on a literal interpretation. Note that TEs do not accept the surface text here any more than in Genesis 2.

What we are asking is why do YECs reject the surface text here, yet insist on it in the creation stories of Genesis? What consistent hermeneutical principle permits rejecting the literalism of geocentric passages of scripture but not young earth implications of scripture?