Dinosaurs/Dragons

[KleinerApfel]

The Early Church never took the Bible 100% literally.

Nobody is claiming they did.

The early church knew how to interpret the bible - eg. the psalms, still truth, are poetry, and not literal in every aspect.

So I agree they didn't take the Bible 100% literally.

But they did believe Genesis to be a historical, literal account, not a poem.

So do you believe in a flat earth?

No, and neither does the Bible say that.

Paladin, did you learn of evolution before learning about the creation account?

Good point Drummer.
We all come to this issue with preconceptions.
Evolution is fed to us in all sorts of ways through life, not just at school. It's a whole world-view.

God bless, Susana

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Okay...sorry about that. I had to have at least 15 posts to put and external site link in my reply. Okay, here's the site URL: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/archives/layman/ar_whatsnew7_00.htm

I'll check it out, thanks.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

I just want to remind everyone that I am not mad or anything because I know these conversations can get heated. Just remember, what's more important than these conversations and who is right or wrong is the cross and our Lord and Savior.

 

[PaladinValer]

Dynamic, that doesn't fit the definition of cud as normally used, first of all.

Secondly, it doesn't seem that you get the idea that, if you take Genesis literally, you must also say the Earth is flat. Since the Earth isn't flat, that means that Genesis cannot always be taken literally. We have full proof that the Earth isn't flat, and now we have continuingly mounting evidence that evolution took place.

But they did believe Genesis to be a historical, literal account, not a poem.

By the time of the Canonization of the Bible, educated folks knew that the Earth wasn't flat, thanks to the ancient Greeks and other peoples. When the Church interpreted the Bible, they knew that they couldn't take Genesis 100% literally anymore like the ancient Hebrews did; the evidence for a spherical world was available. Did they throw out the entire Bible? No! Did they throw out Genesis because it wasn't 100% literally true? No! They realized that the Bible was a theological book of salvation, faith, and doctrine. They didn't care if it said that the Earth was flat; it didn't matter to them.

No, and neither does the Bible say that.

This is simply not true; a literal take of the Bible as was done by the ancient Hebrews depicts a flat Earth. No way around it. The only reason why to deny that it does is usually due to some embarassment that the Scriptures say something so silly by our modern knowledge. The thing to remember is that it doesn't matter; the Bible is only authoritative in doctrine, faith, and salvation.

Evolution is the best (and only) scientific theory there is. Except for some uses of twisted science and bogus claims, nothing has been able to refute it. And to be honest, I don't see the problem with its acceptance. The Early Church Fathers were smart and inspired enough to realize that the Bible was only authoritative in matters of salvation, faith, and doctrine, so how come many people today have either forgotten or not learned this? The idea of literalism is ~100 years old as it exists today and it rejects ~1900 years of Christian doctrine, history, and experience. Why throw all of that away, especially since much of it was inspired (ie: the Ecumenical Councils, which clearly didn't take the Bible literally always)?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Where in Genesis would I get the idea that the earth is flat?

 

[seebs]

Where in Genesis would I get the idea that the earth is flat?

It's not actually Genesis, it's elsewhere in the OT.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

It's not actually Genesis, it's elsewhere in the OT.

So where is the scripture that one would get the idea that the earth is flat?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Dynamic, that doesn't fit the definition of cud as normally used, first of all.

Secondly, it doesn't seem that you get the idea that, if you take Genesis literally, you must also say the Earth is flat. Since the Earth isn't flat, that means that Genesis cannot always be taken literally. We have full proof that the Earth isn't flat, and now we have continuingly mounting evidence that evolution took place.

What does fit the definition then of a cud chewing animal? I appologize for not getting the idea. It must be my blonde hair! When you say "we" have continuingly mounting evidence that evolution took place, where is it? I'd like to see it. If ANYTHING, it is all evidence for MICROevolution which is really just a variation between species. You cannot prove to me MACROevolution, which is one KIND of animal evolving into another, i.e. reptile to a bird. In fact, Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

 

[PaladinValer]

Oh Karl! He asks for proof! **Knows Karl's going to have fun now**

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Oh Karl! He asks for proof! **Knows Karl's going to have fun now**

So....where is it? Don't you have some? Don't wait for Karl to debate me.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

By the way...no one has given me the scripture where the earth is described as being flat. And also Paladin, you haven't told me if you have learned about evolution before looking into Genesis.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Have you actually read Sir Arthur Keith's statement in context?

For example, do you know why he described special creation as incredible? It's not the reason whoever sold you the quote wants you to think, that's for sure.

I refer Drummer to the two evidences I posted on this very forum; which page they've got to I know not, but they are headed "Evidence for evolution I" and "Evidence for evolution II". Both address evolution giving rise to new genera, families and even orders.

 

[pthalomarie]

By the way...no one has given me the scripture where the earth is described as being flat. And also Paladin, you haven't told me if you have learned about evolution before looking into Genesis.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm

This is an article seeking to prove that the argument for a flat earth is based in scripture. There is no one verse he uses, but rather a series of verses.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

By the way...no one has given me the scripture where the earth is described as being flat. And also Paladin, you haven't told me if you have learned about evolution before looking into Genesis.

There are several. Firstly, check out my synopsis of the Genesis cosmology at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/creationisminconsistent.htm - it lists a number of points where scripture makes use of a faulty cosmology which creationists tend to ignore.

Secondly, there is the temptation story. The Devil takes Our Lord up to a high mountain, from which they can see the whole earth. Any idea how that might be on a spherical earth?

I'll answer your second point for Paladin. I grew up with both. No-one ever considered there to be a conflict; one was a theological description, not scientifically accurate but a mine of theological truth - the other was a scientific account. Indeed, I well recall a school Religious Education lesson (we don't have seperation of church and state in the UK) where we looked at both creation stories - Gen 1 and Gen 2, compared them, noted the differences, and compared both of them with the scientific description.

 

[jameseb]

I just want to remind everyone that I am not mad or anything because I know these conversations can get heated. Just remember, what's more important than these conversations and who is right or wrong is the cross and our Lord and Savior.

Well spoken, mate.

 

[jameseb]

Oh Karl! He asks for proof! **Knows Karl's going to have fun now**

Mate, I've read several of your posts here and I'd like to ask you to show a little more respect. Some of your posts are condescending, and unbecoming. Try to be more respectful to people.

 

[jameseb]

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/bible/flatearth.htm

This is an article seeking to prove that the argument for a flat earth is based in scripture. There is no one verse he uses, but rather a series of verses.

....And those were the only quotes they could come up with the to prove they thought the earth was flat? Actually, not a one of those verses mentioned a 'flat earth.'

 

[KleinerApfel]

The Devil takes Our Lord up to a high mountain, from which they can see the whole earth. Any idea how that might be on a spherical earth?

The temptation of Christ by the devil in the wilderness demonstrates that the Lord Jesus, is able to see a lot more than you or I can, regardless of the vantage point.
That God can do this does not surprise me, rather it reassures me.


The quotes given in your "flat earth" essay describe the appearance of the earth as a circle.
The issue of flatness or spherical shape is not addressed, hence the potential for confusion.
To say that the Bible definitely states the earth is flat is reading too much into the limited information given.

As for the imovability of the earth - to all intents and purposes it is so.
Who can move it? Who can observe it moving?

Everything in our universe appears in some way to move, but since we can't observe a point of absolute stillness, who are we to say how fast or in what direction?
It's all relational, and for us here on earth, it is as if it were fixed.
I'm glad of that; we'd all feel rather sick and giddy if we were aware of spinning around at however-many-miles-per-hour it is!

God bless, Susana

 

[jameseb]

Where in Genesis would I get the idea that the earth is flat?

Ya know, I've never found any such thing. However, here's a couple of verses that perhaps suggest the earth was round:


"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." (Isaiah 40:21-22}


The implication of a round earth is also perhaps seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31 Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is perhaps an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.

"In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

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

 

[notto]

"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." (Isaiah 40:21-22}

Sounds more like a teepee to me.

Circle != sphere.

Describing a circle covered by a curtain in the form of a tent doesn't paint a visual image of a sphere to me.