Earth is geocentric (perhaps even flat)

[Strathos]

Funny how Morse and BlueLightning make basically the same arguments and use them to support opposite positions. Of course they're both being way too literal with Biblical phraseology IMO.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I think you are a little late with that warning.

Sound warnings bears repeating.

 

[kiwimac]

Genesis 1 and 2 are parables, they are not scientific texts about HOW the world came to be.

 

[BL2KTN]

Funny how Morse and BlueLightning make basically the same arguments and use them to support opposite positions. Of course they're both being way too literal with Biblical phraseology IMO.

I just recognize he's right about what the bible says. You can't accept what the bible says because its ridiculous. Nobody believes there's a metallic dome that constitutes the sky anymore, yet there it is multiple times in the Hebrew Bible. Anything that the bible is literally wrong about becomes non-literal to you; it's a nice mental trick to keep what you want right.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis 1 and 2 are parables, they are not scientific texts about HOW the world came to be.

As a minister and a theologian perhaps you can support this position with actual passages from the Scriptures. Nobody else seems to be able to do so.
The challenge is this. When evening and morning are used to describe the passage of time in the Scriptures it is always 100% a single solar day. When a day is numbered, such as the first day, the second day etc, they are always singular days in the Scriptures. The order of the creation erases the possibility of long age days. When some quote that a thousand years to God is like a day the conveniently forget that a day is like a thousand years. It means that God is timeless, not that He puts in long hours. Then we have the issue of Exodus 20:11. There God Himself tells Moses that He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Given that Christ speaks of the first man and woman "from the beginning," references Noah by name and affirms that the flood "wiped them all away," I can find no evidence whatever for the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual.

Enlighten me.

 

[DerelictJunction]

As a minister and a theologian perhaps you can support this position with actual passages from the Scriptures. Nobody else seems to be able to do so.
The challenge is this. When evening and morning are used to describe the passage of time in the Scriptures it is always 100% a single solar day. When a day is numbered, such as the first day, the second day etc, they are always singular days in the Scriptures. The order of the creation erases the possibility of long age days. When some quote that a thousand years to God is like a day the conveniently forget that a day is like a thousand years. It means that God is timeless, not that He puts in long hours. Then we have the issue of Exodus 20:11. There God Himself tells Moses that He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Given that Christ speaks of the first man and woman "from the beginning," references Noah by name and affirms that the flood "wiped them all away," I can find no evidence whatever for the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual.

Enlighten me.

Then there actually was a king of the trees. I can find no evidence whatever in the Bible for the claim that Judges 9:7-15 are not factual.

Enlighten me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yesterday I watched from inside my car as a large grasshopper walked across my windshield, using only four legs. It's large back 'hopping' legs were neatly folded against it's body.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yesterday I watched from inside my car as a large grasshopper walked across my windshield, using only four legs. It's large back 'hopping' legs were neatly folded against it's body.

Not sure what this response is addressing but OK.
I can accept a different perspective from their culture than what science has classified. The hopping legs look very different and could be classified as "hoppers" as easily as they could be classified as legs. That's just one passage among many which appear to differ with scientific observation.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Yesterday I watched from inside my car as a large grasshopper walked across my windshield, using only four legs. It's large back 'hopping' legs were neatly folded against it's body.

Awesome! Did that make the legs disappear?

 

[AirPo]

What the heck is an "asstronot?"

Anyone who isn't this guy.

 

[Gene2memE]

Then there actually was a king of the trees. I can find no evidence whatever in the Bible for the claim that Judges 9:7-15 are not factual.

That's not how evidence or the burden of proof works.

A claim need to be supported with evidence. Can you provide any evidence that the anything in Judges 9:7-15 is factual?

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's not how evidence or the burden of proof works.

A claim need to be supported with evidence. Can you provide any evidence that the anything in Judges 9:7-15 is factual?

I think that that was DerelictJunction's point.

 

[Rubiks]

I don't think it matters whether the writers of the Bible incorporated their ancient cosmology into the matter. The author's intent in these verses was not to give a scientific explanation of our world. To expect God to just "explain" all of modern science to the writers is just silly and unreasonable.

Some fundamentalist atheists even take to the point where the Bible cannot be accurate because it uses words like "sunset" or "sunrise."

Biblical inspiration does not mean the Bible is worded the exact way God would have worded it. All writers of the Bible had their own unique writing style.

 

[Rubiks]

That's not how evidence or the burden of proof works.

A claim need to be supported with evidence. Can you provide any evidence that the anything in Judges 9:7-15 is factual?

How about we treat judges as a historical document just like any historical document? Historians do not categorize documents as either "secular" or "religious" and then decide to have a ridiculously high skepticism of those religious documents.

 

[kiwimac]

As a minister and a theologian perhaps you can support this position with actual passages from the Scriptures. Nobody else seems to be able to do so.
The challenge is this. When evening and morning are used to describe the passage of time in the Scriptures it is always 100% a single solar day. When a day is numbered, such as the first day, the second day etc, they are always singular days in the Scriptures. The order of the creation erases the possibility of long age days. When some quote that a thousand years to God is like a day the conveniently forget that a day is like a thousand years. It means that God is timeless, not that He puts in long hours. Then we have the issue of Exodus 20:11. There God Himself tells Moses that He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Given that Christ speaks of the first man and woman "from the beginning," references Noah by name and affirms that the flood "wiped them all away," I can find no evidence whatever for the claim that Genesis 1 and 2 are not factual.

Enlighten me.

Frankly, you are set in your beliefs and nothing I could say will shift you and so you need to do some reading. I CAN supply you with titles / authors of books and, with a little work web-page links, but you yourself need to do this work.

 

[DerelictJunction]

That's not how evidence or the burden of proof works.

A claim need to be supported with evidence. Can you provide any evidence that the anything in Judges 9:7-15 is factual?

Well, since that's how evidence and the burden of proof works, can you provide any evidence that anything in Genesis 1 and 2 is factual?

You claim that Genesis is different than Judges 9:7-15. Show me the evidence.

 

[morse86]

It is plain to see when the bible is speaking figuratively vs literally.

When the Lord says everything was created in 6 six days...it really was created in 6 days. When the Lord says salvation is by faith...it really means salvation is by faith.

If the majority of the verses on a particular topic all agree with each other....then it is literal!

 

[Strathos]

I just recognize he's right about what the bible says. You can't accept what the bible says because its ridiculous. Nobody believes there's a metallic dome that constitutes the sky anymore, yet there it is multiple times in the Hebrew Bible. Anything that the bible is literally wrong about becomes non-literal to you; it's a nice mental trick to keep what you want right.

I don't think it matters whether the writers of the Bible incorporated their ancient cosmology into the matter. The author's intent in these verses was not to give a scientific explanation of our world. To expect God to just "explain" all of modern science to the writers is just silly and unreasonable.

Some fundamentalist atheists even take to the point where the Bible cannot be accurate because it uses words like "sunset" or "sunrise."

Biblical inspiration does not mean the Bible is worded the exact way God would have worded it. All writers of the Bible had their own unique writing style.

You responded for me

 

[KWCrazy]

Frankly, you are set in your beliefs and nothing I could say will shift you and so you need to do some reading. I CAN supply you with titles / authors of books and, with a little work web-page links, but you yourself need to do this work.

I'm not interested in the opinions and writings of man, I'm interested in the word of the Lord. Jesus said that the first man and women were there from the begging. You say this is not so. What chapter and verse supports your claim?

 

[Shemjaza]

It is plain to see when the bible is speaking figuratively vs literally.

When the Lord says everything was created in 6 six days...it really was created in 6 days. When the Lord says salvation is by faith...it really means salvation is by faith.

If the majority of the verses on a particular topic all agree with each other....then it is literal!

Then why are you almost alone in your interpretation?

Even the hard core literalists like AV don't doubt the shape of the Earth.