Evolution vs. The Bible

[granpa]

 

[Calminian]

...Hebrew did have a different term for 'ball' and it is never used of 'erets'.

What term are you referring to? Here the term for circle can definitely be used for sphere, and is.

But why would you expect erets to be described as a ball? It's not a ball, it's the dry land.

...However, it is irrelevant to my point about the literal meaning of biblical verses which refer to the non-movement of the 'erets' in contrast to the movement (literal movement) of the heavenly bodies.

But the land literally does not move upon its foundation. Once you get off the globe/earth assumption, you're case against the Bible crumbles. The dry land rests on a solid foundation.

You are walking a fine line, Calminian, and may have overstepped it here. I would not be in the forum if I were not a believer. May I suggest you reread forum guidelines and rephrase these statements?

As believer in Christ, yes. I've never questioned that. And that's all that's necessary for salvation. (I don't know for certain where you are with Christ, but belief in evolution and rejection of Genesis is not a disqualified).

But when it comes to Genesis, you indeed are an unbeliever, as many other christians are. If fact the majority of the church is struggling with unbelief on this issue. That I stand firmly by. I'll even take it a step further and say you are a stumbling block to evangelism, as you proclaim only to believe a small portion of the Bible, affirming the doubts of an unbelieving world. That I stand firmly by as well.

But no, I don't take the view that an affirmation of Genesis is akin to being a christian. Nor does AiG, nor CMI, nor ICR, nor any other creationists group I know of. In fact I'm debating Mark Kennedy on this on another thread.

 

[gluadys]

What term are you referring to?

'duwr' as used in Isaiah 22:18.

Interestingly, according to Strong's Concordance, it can also mean "circle".

Here the term for circle can definitely be used for sphere, and is.

I agree, it can mean sphere, but on what grounds do you say that it is? To know that, we would need to know that "sphere" rather than "circle" was the meaning the author intended. I don't know about you, but I am not a mindreader.

What I do know is that there is very little reason, given other contemporaneous uses within and outside the bible, for 'erets' ever to be described as a sphere.

But why would you expect erets to be described as a ball?

I wouldn't. Not at all. I don't think 'erets' (earth) is ever described or intended to be described as a sphere in scripture. Yet you just said above that the "circle of the earth" is a sphere. That makes you sound a bit confused.

It's not a ball, it's the dry land.

I agree. So the "circle of the earth" is not a ball or globe or sphere.

But the land literally does not move upon its foundation.

Nor off of it either. It does not move at all, unless and until God himself shakes its foundations and causes it to fall. Hence, the meaning of references to the stability of the earth in scripture are to be taken literally, and likewise the meaning of references to the movement of heavenly bodies are to be taken literally. When biblical authors said the sun moves across the sky, or referred to sunrise or sunset, they understood such motion to be literal, actual, factual---not figurative or apparent as we do.

Once you get off the globe/earth assumption, you're case against the Bible crumbles. The dry land rests on a solid foundation.

Hey, I have been off that notion for a long time. AS I have said repeatedly, I am not making any case against the bible. I am making a case against foolish definitions of "literal".

Did you see the excerpt Achilles quoted from Gill' Exposition. In it Gill clearly referred to the earth as a globe. Most Christians over at least the last 1500 years have thought of the earth as a globe. And they have been unaware that the biblical concept of 'erets' or even of land+sea is not that. So without being conscious of it, they have been using a figurative, not a literal, interpretation of such passages in scripture.

As believer in Christ, yes. I've never questioned that. And that's all that's necessary for salvation. (I don't know for certain where you are with Christ, but belief in evolution and rejection of Genesis is not a disqualified).

But when it comes to Genesis, you indeed are an unbeliever, as many other christians are.

No, I am not. I do believe Genesis, right from verse 1:1, and I believe the creation stories are a fundamentally important part of scripture for Christians as they were for Christ. I believe Genesis as I understand it.

It happens that my understanding of Genesis does not agree with your understanding of Genesis, but that is no ground for you to say I don't believe it.

We just approach it in different ways, but we both believe.

But no, I don't take the view that an affirmation of Genesis is akin to being a christian. Nor does AiG, nor CMI, nor ICR, nor any other creationists group I know of. In fact I'm debating Mark Kennedy on this on another thread.

Good for you.

And thank you.

 

[Calminian]

...I agree, it can mean sphere, but on what grounds do you say that it is?...

The context is God sitting on the circle and seeing us as grasshoppers. that's why it can't be speaking of the spherical earth, but rather the atmosphere that surrounds it, which is spherical. This fits all uses of this word in the O.T.

What I do know is that there is very little reason, given other contemporaneous uses within and outside the bible, for 'erets' ever to be described as a sphere.

I agree. I don't think erets ever is described as a globe or disc or circle, anymore than land would be described as such. I've been saying this to you for years it seems. I hoping you'll finally get it on this thread.

Did you see the excerpt Achilles quoted from Gill' Exposition. In it Gill clearly referred to the earth as a globe. Most Christians over at least the last 1500 years have thought of the earth as a globe. And they have been unaware that the biblical concept of 'erets' or even of land+sea is not that. So without being conscious of it, they have been using a figurative, not a literal, interpretation of such passages in scripture.

They're not being figurative, I just think they've made the mistake of not compensating for ancient nomenclature. From the very first tablet penned on creation, the world has been described as sky, land and sea. The term for land has become earth which has a dual meaning, but unfortunately the planetary meaning has crept into to modern exegesis. I think it's a mistake, just as calling earth a disc or flat is a mistake. Neither are what the biblical writers had in mind. They weren't describing the land/sea unit (disc/globe) concept of earth.

No, I am not. I do believe Genesis, right from verse 1:1, and I believe the creation stories are a fundamentally important part of scripture for Christians as they were for Christ. I believe Genesis as I understand it.

Of course, just as Bishop Spong believes the Resurrection as he understands it. But I consider him an unbeliever of the Gospel (and and apostate) even though he has a special way of understanding it. I just consider you and unbeliever of Genesis (but still a christian). You're undermining your testimony, by undermining the authority of God, but thankfully the gospel can be accepting even upon an illogical foundation.

 

[Achilles6129]

Given that actual cherubs are angelic creatures of a spiritual nature, the reference to 'gold' and 'hammer' understood literally tell us that Moses literally made literal golden images of cherubs from literally hammered gold.

The point is that by the sense that theistic evolutionists insist that we understand the meaning of the word "literal," we would actually have to believe that there may be a possibility that those are literal cherubs on the ark, not representations made of gold.

Sure. Science is full of metaphors. Did you think "big bang" was literal?

Sunrise, sunset, etc., are literal statements. A large part of this debate has been about theistic evolutionist misuse of the word "literal." As I pointed out above, literal can mean what an object literally looks like but not necessarily how it exactly is. "Sunrise and sunset" could not really be considered metaphors in the usual sense of the term. Metaphors are usually something like "drowning in money" or something like that.

But at this point you've made it clear that you have a different definition of literal, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Of course, that doesn't rule out that Genesis 1 is poetry; it's just not the same type of poetry.

Right. And it doesn't rule out the idea that the narratives about Abraham/Isaac/Jacob are poetry either. Do you believe they really existed, or are they all a parable as well?

One of the major problems when theistic evolutionists come to Scripture is that if we subscribe to their hermeneutic we simply can no longer figure out what the Bible says. This debate has been an excellent example of that: I would consider the statement that the waters turned to blood to be fulfilled if the waters turned into something that looked like blood; you would consider the statement to be false because the waters didn't turn into literal, actual blood.

In short, if we interpret things the way theistic evolutionists want us to, then we really cannot understand anything in the Bible at all. It becomes a meaningless book that we can no longer take seriously.

 

[Achilles6129]

Hi Calminian,

I did want to address the part of your post about erets:

I agree. I don't think erets ever is described as a globe or disc or circle, anymore than land would be described as such.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1

The earth (erets) here can only mean the planet earth, not just the dry land.

 

[gluadys]

Hi Calminian,

I did want to address the part of your post about erets:



"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1

The earth (erets) here can only mean the planet earth, not just the dry land.

Problem is that the person who wrote that verse did not consider the earth to be a planet. In his vocabulary a planet was a star which was found only in the heavens. The earth is not a star and is not found in the heavens. So, it cannot be "the planet earth" as earth, in his model of the universe, was not a planet.

No one included Earth among the planets until Copernicus' view of the solar system was accepted.

 

[gluadys]

The point is that by the sense that theistic evolutionists insist that we understand the meaning of the word "literal," we would actually have to believe that there may be a possibility that those are literal cherubs on the ark, not representations made of gold.

Not at all, since the text specifically refers to gold and to the process of hammering out gold to make a cherub, while we know that actual cherubs are not material at all. A cherub of gold cannot be a literal cherub any more than a marble statue of David can actually be David.

Sunrise, sunset, etc., are literal statements.

Not in our time, unless you are a very young child who hasn't yet learned that despite appearances, the earth moves and it is that motion of the earth that produces the phenomenon we call sunrise and sunset. Once that is understood, every time you use the words you are using them figuratively since you know it is not the sun itself that is rising or setting.

In biblical times and right up to the 16th century CE every time the words were used they were used with a actual movement of the sun in mind. That is a literal understanding.

A large part of this debate has been about theistic evolutionist misuse of the word "literal." As I pointed out above, literal can mean what an object literally looks like but not necessarily how it exactly is. "Sunrise and sunset" could not really be considered metaphors in the usual sense of the term.

And you are mistaken. In modern use "sunrise" and "sunset" are metaphors for "the earth turning on its axis so that the sun looks like it is moving relative to the horizon."

But at this point you've made it clear that you have a different definition of literal, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

The difference is that my definition is the standard definition while yours is idiosyncratic.

Right. And it doesn't rule out the idea that the narratives about Abraham/Isaac/Jacob are poetry either. Do you believe they really existed, or are they all a parable as well?

This is a good example of how a professed belief in "literalism" gets bound up with entirely different issues. There are three different issues here:

Are the stories recounted in poetic form or in prose?
Are they narratives or non-narratives?
Are they about historical or fictional people?

I often see people denounce the idea of poetry in the bible (or at least the parts they want to take literally) as if poetry is incompatible with narrative or incompatible with history or both.

In fact, a poem can also be a narrative. So even if the stories about the patriarchs were poetry, that doesn't rule out that they are also narratives and even narratives about historical people.

As it happens, they are prose narratives. But please note that this does not make them any more or less historical than if they were narratives in poetry.

In fact, one also has to separate "narrative" from "history". For a narrative is simply a coherent story with a beginning, middle and end---without regard to whether it is fiction or non-fiction. Virtually all novels and short stories are narratives. A newspaper or television report is usually a narrative. So is a fairy tale. And some poems are also narratives, some of which are about fictional people and some of which are about historical people.

btw: none of the above has anything to do with TE. This is standard teaching in English literature and composition. (or in any language) In fact, I still have my Grade Nine poetry text. Its title is "Poems, chiefly narrative".

So here is my problem with the way professed literalists understand "literal". They confuse it with being non-poetical, and they confuse it with being historical.

But a literal understanding of the text has nothing to do with whether it is poetry or prose, narrative or non-narrative, history, fiction or historical fiction.

Further the poetry-prose distinction has nothing to do with the narrative or non-narrative distinction. There is plenty of prose both biblical and secular which is not narrative: essays, letters, lists, editorials, etc. and plenty of poetry that is narrative.

Finally neither of these distinctions has anything to do with history vs. not-history.

Which comes to the final point.

There is no such genre as historical narrative.

Narrative is narrative whether or not the story is about historical events and people. Narratives about historical events and people has the same quality as narratives that are entirely fiction. And when you get into the blend we call historical fiction, well, sometimes it is difficult to tell whether one is reading fiction or biography. (Of course some would say that all biography is fiction).

History, of course, is usually retold in prose narrative. That doesn't mean that prose narrative is necessarily factual history.

So, you ask if I believe that the patriarchs really existed. Yes, I do. But not because of the genre of narrative that tells about them. Genre is no guarantee of historical existence. So I believe, but cannot prove. The stories do not differ in genre from dozens of similar stories we all regard as fictional.

One of the major problems when theistic evolutionists come to Scripture is that if we subscribe to their hermeneutic we simply can no longer figure out what the Bible says. This debate has been an excellent example of that: I would consider the statement that the waters turned to blood to be fulfilled if the waters turned into something that looked like blood; you would consider the statement to be false because the waters didn't turn into literal, actual blood.

Not quite. A TE would consider that the statement was true, even if the water did not turn into actual blood. But they would understand that it was true figuratively, not literally. What you are saying is that you would also consider the statement true if it were fulfilled figuratively. So we really agree about the truth of the statement.

It is just that you have a hang-up about acknowledging that the fulfillment you would accept as true does not need to be literally true.

I attribute that to the sort of confusion about the meaning of "literal" that has developed in creationist circles. So often"literal" is conflated with "true" "historical" "narrative" "prose" and other things it is not.

Because the meaning of "literal" is "actual, factual" "the most common meaning" of a term, the literal meaning of "blood" must refer to actual blood. The statement that water turned to blood can only be understood literally if the water becomes actual blood.

But that doesn't mean the prophecy must be false if it is not fulfilled literally. The prophecy, we agree, would be just as truly fulfilled if the waters turned red like blood, appeared to be blood, without actually being blood. No falsehood is implied here: only a figurative rather than a literal fulfillment.

In short, if we interpret things the way theistic evolutionists want us to, then we really cannot understand anything in the Bible at all. It becomes a meaningless book that we can no longer take seriously.

I understand that is your view, but you will find many TEs who have discovered the opposite is true; that it is a literal interpretation we cannot take seriously, and scripture has become much more meaningful once we acknowledged that.

I expect this is a place where we do need to agree to disagree.

 

[Achilles6129]

Not in our time, unless you are a very young child who hasn't yet learned that despite appearances, the earth moves and it is that motion of the earth that produces the phenomenon we call sunrise and sunset. Once that is understood, every time you use the words you are using them figuratively since you know it is not the sun itself that is rising or setting.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. The center of this entire debate is over exactly what the word "literal" means: I maintain that theistic evolutionists have made the definition out to be something that it's not - something that's unreasonable.

So, you ask if I believe that the patriarchs really existed. Yes, I do. But not because of the genre of narrative that tells about them. Genre is no guarantee of historical existence. So I believe, but cannot prove. The stories do not differ in genre from dozens of similar stories we all regard as fictional.

And here we have the crux of the matter: you have admitted that, based upon a theistic evolutionist' reading of Scripture, we do not really know whether or not the patriarchs were real people. In other words, we really have no idea whether the things in the Bible are real or not: the Bible has become a book of meaningless words that we can make out to mean whatever we want to mean.

I understand that is your view, but you will find many TEs who have discovered the opposite is true; that it is a literal interpretation we cannot take seriously, and scripture has become much more meaningful once we acknowledged that.

How has Scripture become more meaningful when you can never know what it actually means?!

 

[gluadys]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. The center of this entire debate is over exactly what the word "literal" means: I maintain that theistic evolutionists have made the definition out to be something that it's not - something that's unreasonable.

But, as you have seen, it is not TEs who are deviating from the standard dictionary meaning of "literal".

And here we have the crux of the matter: you have admitted that, based upon a theistic evolutionist' reading of Scripture, we do not really know whether or not the patriarchs were real people.

Not at all. I have only said that one piece of evidence commonly used by creationists is not real evidence. They have invented a genre which they call "historical narrative" but it is actually "narrative" plain and simple. There is no significant difference between a narrative about real history and a narrative with historical verisimilitude i.e. a fiction made to read like history. So genre doesn't confirm history.

But that is just one type of evidence that can be used. We cannot be absolutely sure of the existence of any of the patriarchs, but we can take note of the sort of society and culture depicted in the narrative and determine if it represents the time period of the events. If it does, it is reasonable to consider the historical existence of these individuals as highly probable. That is as good as any well-established scientific theory which we commonly treat as factual.

Of course, if we turned up an archeological artifact with a reference to Abraham or Joseph, that would be even better, but aside from monarchs and a few other officials, very few archeological artifacts refer to specific individuals. So the best we can do is make a judgment call on the basis of probability.

In other words, we really have no idea whether the things in the Bible are real or not: the Bible has become a book of meaningless words that we can make out to mean whatever we want to mean.

Well, in scientific terms one never has absolute proof of the reality of historical persons or events--that's just the nature of science. I don't know why you would call the Bible a book of meaningless words just because you can't prove that every person or event in it is historical. I certainly don't find it meaningless at all.

How has Scripture become more meaningful when you can never know what it actually means?!

I think one discovers what it means by studying it as one would any other literature. Determine what message the author intends to convey. No biblical author is simply writing a historical journal. Each author chooses certain people to write about and certain incidents to write about. Working out why this story, whether historical or not, was one the author thought important provides the meaning. A key factor in most OT stories is to identify what God is doing. A second key factor is to identify who the author is speaking to: why does he want to convey this story to these people? What does he expect it to mean to them?

 

[Calminian]

Hi Calminian,

I did want to address the part of your post about erets:



"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1:1

The earth (erets) here can only mean the planet earth, not just the dry land.

Well this is generally one of the exceptions that is pointed to, but I actually think land works really well here, as it is described and being still unformed. Unformed land should be considered different from formed land which is the dry land.

A paraphrase might be: In the beginning God created the land and the sky. Initially the land was not formed nor filled as well see it today, but was merely formless waters.

This would seem to be what the ancient readers would have thought upon reading this. Sky of course would not be limited to our atmosphere, and the ancients didn't know what an atmosphere was anyway. The sky was the heavens which was all that is above us. I'm sure it was a great mystery to them.

Furthermore, Peter comments on this later, saying that the earth was formed out of water. This is definitely going back to Genesis 1, where the unformed land was described as "the waters." God changed these waters into land much in the same way he changed water into wine.

And I don't think Gen. 1:2 is describing a land mass covered in water. I think it's describing the unformed land, which initially was called the waters. Had it merely been describing a flooded land mass, the waters could not be described as "empty." Both the land and sea were made from these same waters.

Now had Genesis described something already formed, yes, that would seem to indicate something more compatible with a planet concept. But Gen. 1:2 is describing something unformed or yet to be formed. The substance was there, just not the form.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well this is generally one of the exceptions that is pointed to, but I actually think land works really well here, as it is described and being still unformed. Unformed land should be considered different from formed land which is the dry land.

First of all, the "earth" in v.1 is parallel to "heaven" in v.1. It seems to be saying that God created all that there is. If v.1 is referring to just the land, then that leaves out the sea and ruins what the v. seems to be trying to convey.

Also, there seems to be a deliberate parallel in the book of Revelation:

" Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Rev. 21:1 (NRSV)

Notice that John is talking about a planet here, not just dry land, as he has to mention that there is no sea.

Furthermore, Peter comments on this later, saying that the earth was formed out of water. This is definitely going back to Genesis 1, where the unformed land was described as "the waters." God changed these waters into land much in the same way he changed water into wine.

Peter does say that the dry land was formed out of the water, yes. But I would really question the idea that earth and water can mean the same thing in Genesis 1 - they seem to be referring to two different things.

Also, do you really think that the words "formless and void" can be applied to water? Doesn't it make more sense if it's talking about a planet?

Hebrew Lexicon :: H8414 (KJV)

Hebrew Lexicon :: H922 (KJV)

In addition, there is another passage in Genesis 1 that seems to be using "erets" in reference to the entire planet:

"14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars." Gen. 1:14-16 (NRSV)

"22 As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.”" Gen. 8:22 (NRSV)

The fact that global terminology is used here seems to indicate that "erets" is also global.

 

[Achilles6129]

Hi there gluadys,

But, as you have seen, it is not TEs who are deviating from the standard dictionary meaning of "literal".

Like I said, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

There is no significant difference between a narrative about real history and a narrative with historical verisimilitude i.e. a fiction made to read like history. So genre doesn't confirm history.

But that is just one type of evidence that can be used. We cannot be absolutely sure of the existence of any of the patriarchs,

Like I said, this is my major problem with your interpretation. I'm sorry that you can't trust the word of God on this matter.

I don't know why you would call the Bible a book of meaningless words just because you can't prove that every person or event in it is historical. I certainly don't find it meaningless at all.

Well if you can't figure out what those words truly mean then it would really be meaningless, wouldn't it?

I think one discovers what it means by studying it as one would any other literature. Determine what message the author intends to convey.

OK - and how exactly did the author of Scripture intend to convey evolution?

 

[gluadys]

First of all, the "earth" in v.1 is parallel to "heaven" in v.1. It seems to be saying that God created all that there is. If v.1 is referring to just the land, then that leaves out the sea and ruins what the v. seems to be trying to convey.

Also, there seems to be a deliberate parallel in the book of Revelation:

" Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Rev. 21:1 (NRSV)

Notice that John is talking about a planet here, not just dry land, as he has to mention that there is no sea.

I agree, John is not talking only about land, but he is not talking about a planet either. In John's time the word "planet" applied to stars, not to satellites of stars. No biblical author refers to earth (whether than means land alone or land+sea) as a planet. In fact, none even refers to earth (both meanings above) as a sphere.

Hi there gluadys,
Like I said, this is my major problem with your interpretation. I'm sorry that you can't trust the word of God on this matter.

If you are trying to prove the truth of the bible, you can't use the bible itself as evidence. And if you are trying to prove the truth of the bible depends on a literal reading of the text, you still can't use the bible itself as evidence.

Putting trust in the word of God comes down to believing without evidence. Nothing wrong with that. In the long run, it's all we have. And it is the very definition of faith.

Well if you can't figure out what those words truly mean then it would really be meaningless, wouldn't it?

It might be if you assume that literal meaning is the only possible way for a word to mean something. But language is capable of much more meaning than literal meaning alone.

OK - and how exactly did the author of Scripture intend to convey evolution?

He didn't. Evolution was not a concept available to biblical authors. Just as earth being a planet was not part of their model of the cosmos either. Much modern science has no reference in scripture and we misinterpret it when we try to insert it. Scripture, for example, has no concept of outer space or galaxies or deep time, no reference to fossils, to land beyond the Near East and the Mediterranean basin or to any of their flora and fauna (e.g. no penguins, no kangaroos, no polar bears or llamas).

 

[Calminian]

First of all, the "earth" in v.1 is parallel to "heaven" in v.1. It seems to be saying that God created all that there is. If v.1 is referring to just the land, then that leaves out the sea and ruins what the v. seems to be trying to convey.

Also, there seems to be a deliberate parallel in the book of Revelation:

" Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Rev. 21:1 (NRSV)

Notice that John is talking about a planet here, not just dry land, as he has to mention that there is no sea.

The distinction of earth and sea is actually carried over into the N.T. For instance,

Rev. 10:8 Then the voice which I heard from heaven spoke to me again and said, “Go, take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the earth.” ​

This is another obvious reference to land and sea, just as the verse you cite. There is no planet concept in mind here. If Revelation is a parallel, it strengthens my case.

It's not that the ancients had no concept of a planet, they just used sky land and see as descriptive tools in the Bible.

I've not come across a single passage where earth could not mean land, and still keep the sense of the passage, starting in Genesis 1:1.

And yes, I do think water fits the formless and empty description. Seems waters were the original building blocks of the world.

 

[Achilles6129]

No biblical author refers to earth (whether than means land alone or land+sea) as a planet. In fact, none even refers to earth (both meanings above) as a sphere.

They refer to earth as this reality, this world that we live in. That means the entire world/planet.

If you are trying to prove the truth of the bible, you can't use the bible itself as evidence. And if you are trying to prove the truth of the bible depends on a literal reading of the text, you still can't use the bible itself as evidence.

Putting trust in the word of God comes down to believing without evidence. Nothing wrong with that. In the long run, it's all we have. And it is the very definition of faith.

No it doesn't. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the Bible is true starting with fulfilled prophecy and continuing through archaeology, etc. As a matter of fact, one can actually know whether or not the Bible is true:

"16 Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. 17 Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own." Jn. 7:16-17 (NRSV)

You see, the gospel of Jesus Christ offers experiential knowledge to those who would obey God's commands. It is experiential experience through the Holy Spirit - you can know that the Bible is the real truth. I suggest you study the word "know" in the NT.

He didn't.

Thank-you for admitting that.

Evolution was not a concept available to biblical authors.

It was, however, a concept available to God. Am I to take it that you do not believe that God divinely inspired the Bible?

 

[Achilles6129]

The distinction of earth and sea is actually carried over into the N.T. For instance,

Rev. 10:8 Then the voice which I heard from heaven spoke to me again and said, “Go, take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the earth.”
​

This is another obvious reference to land and sea, just as the verse you cite. There is no planet concept in mind here. If Revelation is a parallel, it strengthens my case.

Hi Calminian,

Actually the concept of the entire world is in the NT:

" 8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered." Rev. 13:8 (NRSV)

Please explain to me how the Rev. 21:1 passage being parallel to Gen. 1:1 supports your case. I would think it would support the idea that the planet is being spoken of in Gen. 1:1 since Rev. 21:1 is referring to the new world that the saved will live in. That being the case, it makes sense that Gen. 1:1 is referring to the old world. Thanks

 

[gluadys]

It's not that the ancients had no concept of a planet, they just used sky land and see as descriptive tools in the Bible.

The ancients did have a concept of a planet, Calminian. But their concept was not ours. Their concept of a planet was that of a star that was not fixed in place. The very word "planet" means "wanderer".

It is because their concept of a planet was that a planet belonged to the class of things called stars that they never thought of the earth as a planet.

They refer to earth as this reality, this world that we live in. That means the entire world/planet.

I agree they mean the entire terrestrial world (not the universe as a whole or even the solar system), but while that means "planet" to you and me, it did not to them. Their concept of planet was not applicable to earth.

No it doesn't. There is an enormous amount of evidence that the Bible is true starting with fulfilled prophecy and continuing through archaeology, etc. As a matter of fact, one can actually know whether or not the Bible is true:

Archeology would be an acceptable form of evidence to show the historicity of some parts of the bible. Two of the best cases come from the reign of Hezekiah: the inscription on the tunnel built to bring water inside the city walls as described in the book of kings was found, and also an Assyrian inscription referring to the siege of Jerusalem, (even naming Hezekiah) as described in the bible.

Fulfilled prophecy, not so much. Too subject to manipulation and interpretation. Does the Servant described in Isaiah really refer to Jesus? That is a traditional Christian interpretation especially of Isaiah 53. But Jewish theologians say that is not a Messianic prophecy and the Servant refers to the nation of Israel. Who is to say whether it is Christians or Jews who have interpreted it properly? Possibly neither.

"16 Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me. 17 Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own." Jn. 7:16-17 (NRSV)

I don't think Jesus was telling us we could know this through the logic of science. As you see, what it actually takes is resolve to do the will of God--and that is an act of faith.

You see, the gospel of Jesus Christ offers experiential knowledge to those who would obey God's commands. It is experiential experience through the Holy Spirit - you can know that the Bible is the real truth.

Exactly. I would never deny that faith is experiential. But this is far from the sort of objective, evidential knowledge of science. I think it is just as real as knowledge gleaned through science--in some ways, perhaps, more real, and certainly more important.

I suggest you study the word "know" in the NT.

Good point. Again, not the same sort of concept as knowing through testing material evidence or logical reasoning. What is important in scripture is to know God and test the spirits.

Thank-you for admitting that.

Actually, the big problem for TEs here is convincing creationists that we have no intention of inserting modern science into scripture. In fact, I see more of that from creationists than from TEs. There is a certain school of thought which engages in what I call anachronistic interpretation, re-interpreting texts of scripture in ways that would be unintelligible to their own authors to make them correlate to modern science. One current favourite is to take the scriptural phrase "spreading the heavens" to refer to the expansion of the universe, unknown to humanity until the 20th century. Ridiculous correlation of ancient texts to modern science.

It was, however, a concept available to God. Am I to take it that you do not believe that God divinely inspired the Bible?

Not at all. But you can take it that I don't believe inspiration extended to privately revealing to the authors what was to be discovered millennia later but then having them write as if they did not know it. God could inspire them to write what was needful to salvation without giving them a 21st century education in the sciences. Inspiration doesn't mean revealing everything God knows--only what his people needed to know then and there. And what they most needed to know was God himself and God's will for them.

So, yes, I believe God divinely inspired the bible, and that in communicating with the human authors, rather than force-feed them a course in science to be, he accommodated his message to the pre-scientific conceptions of the day.

Christians have long recognized that God stoops to where people are. This is the spirit of the Incarnation. It is also a concept used by Augustine in his teaching on creation. In God's sight we are all little children who need to be spoken to simply in vocabulary we can understand. So he accommodates his inspired message to that level of comprehension.

 

[Calminian]

The ancients did have a concept of a planet, Calminian. But their concept was not ours. Their concept of a planet was that of a star that was not fixed in place. The very word "planet" means "wanderer".

It is because their concept of a planet was that a planet belonged to the class of things called stars that they never thought of the earth as a planet.

Okay, so please defend this assertion. I'll be curious what verses you'll provide.

 

[Calminian]

Hi Calminian,

Actually the concept of the entire world is in the NT:

" 8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered." Rev. 13:8 (NRSV)

Well, for one, that's not the entire world, that's just the earth where humans dwell. Human's don't dwell in the heavens or the sea, they are limited to the earth (land). Earth here absolutely has to be referring to the land where all humans dwell.

You'll notice fish are never said to be of the earth. We today, would talk about the fish of the earth, as we think of earth as a planet. In fact, we think of the oceans as being of the earth—planet earth. But ancients didn't choose to describe the world that way. They spoke of the land and sea.

And I never meant to imply the biblical authors didn't have a concept for the world, in fact they would sum it up as the heavens the earth and the sea. That was the world, as they chose to describe it. These are the 3 distinct components of the entire universe, and it's a perfectly valid way to describe it.

Please explain to me how the Rev. 21:1 passage being parallel to Gen. 1:1 supports your case. I would think it would support the idea that the planet is being spoken of in Gen. 1:1 since Rev. 21:1 is referring to the new world that the saved will live in. That being the case, it makes sense that Gen. 1:1 is referring to the old world. Thanks

I would just ask you, though, why wouldn't these work with earth being a simple concept of land?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the land, and the land was initially unformed and unfilled.

And I saw in the future, there was a new heaven and new land, for the old ones passed away, but this time there is no sea.​

I firmly believe this is what was in John's mind, as he would have been very familiar with the way Moses described the 3 fold universe—heaven, earth, sea.

And this is no way means the were embracing a false cosmology. It's a very logical way to describe the world.