Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is always amazing to me that about 1700 years of scholars, including the pillars of the Christian church, resolutely believed that the earth was the centre of the Universe. To the point where some of them were willing to burn at the stake those who suggested otherwise.
My suggestion is that those who utterly reject evolution as being one of God's tools to create the multitude of species that we see today are also being dogmatic.
Hopefully, it won't take 1700 years to establish the truth.
I have no clue what "geocentrism" is and unless your spelling is terrible, neither does the dictionary.
By the way...there is only One author.
Perhaps you would like to open a thread on the mystical geocentrism and stick to....evolution, the lie of evolution, which is one of the fruits of a certain tree.
.
Adam did not evolve into other races...nor did Noah. All races, mankind, were created on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth.
They were not given to understand all they prophesied. Consider too that the events of the past were shadows of the future. History has repeated over and over...all leading to the end of days.
Daniel 12:8-9 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, "O My Lord, what shall be the end of these things?' And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
.
Obviously someone who doesn't even grasp what geocentrism is, has no business calling evolution a lie. Your understanding of any form of science is severely lacking.I have no clue what "geocentrism" is and unless your spelling is terrible, neither does the dictionary.
By the way...there is only One author.
Perhaps you would like to open a thread on the mystical geocentrism and stick to....evolution, the lie of evolution, which is one of the fruits of a certain tree.
.
[/i]
Ironically, you HAVE chosen selectively chosen one out of 17 definitions, one which you could not have determined from the context of a literal reading of the Bible alone, which means you ARE cherry picking in order to circumvent the inherent ambiguity of the verse.
WW - I don't say the Bible trumps science....I say the two need to conform for it to be truth. When science conflicts with Him then...who is wrong?
The alternative. The people who wrote the Bible down.
Look, it might have actually referred to a 2D projection but given the terminology one used, one cannot know for sure if one only relies on a literal reading - in fact it is downright ambiguous.
Nope - you still haven't gotten the point I'm making. I'm saying you cannot exclusively conclude that it is round only from the usage of the world "circle" as it is imprecise (especially when there ARE precise colloquialisms that describe 3D objects rather than 2D.
Nor is it a biology or cosmology text, that doesn't seem to stop you making claims that fly in the face of them.
You'd think he could have inspired the writers to be a bit clearer then.
"Round" is vague. It is an oblate spheroid, and this is not revealed in the Bible via a literal reading, but through science.
And yet if you read that verse before people widely knew the earth was round, they would have concluded that God was confirming the world was flat, using the exact same logic as you have. Why? Because the word is imprecise. The exact same thing did happen with the verses people used to support their belief in geocentrism.
NO, it isn't.
You've just mangled 2D and 3D together again. A circular object is 2D. An orb is 3D. 2D=/=3D.
Someone had to put pen on paper, and given the amount of cultural artefacts within it, it's pretty obvious that some of their influences crept in.
You have done nothing to show that your personal interpretations are "the original", so please kindly stop claiming that they are. You said that we should reject the things of men - and I am. That is why I reject creationism. Taking Genesis as metaphor is not a lie either.
Ironically, believing in young-earth creationism makes God into a liar, which is why I reject such men-inspired interpretations.
Yes, it means they haven't understood the science involved regarding the validity of evolution, cosmology etc.
Like I said, we got over this eventually with geocentrism giving way to heliocentrism. The same thing will happen eventually with evolution also.
And anytime you want to refute the masses of evidence supporting common descent, feel free to start.
Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try harder, before being a smartmouth (care to ponder what tree that came from?)
I can think of several people who would claim to be as fervent literalists as you when it comes to Genesis 1 who would disagree with this.
So much for it not being personal interpretations of course
So...in other words, perhaps you're hearing a 6-day creation but you do not yet understand that it's not literally true?
Obviously someone who doesn't even grasp what geocentrism is, has no business calling evolution a lie. Your understanding of any form of science is severely lacking.
Actually...there were more than one. Were I cherry picking I would only have provided one...I didn't.
That isn't an option Cabal. You could certainly say that about modern translations but not about the text.
Okay...but it isn't at all ambiguous to me.
Oh, but I can and do exclusively conclude it is round and the wording meant round.
And what is that? What claims?
It is clear to me and everyone I know...except perhaps evolutionists.
That's a bit of overkill Cabal. Come on, the earth is round and there is the circle of the earth. Simple...no need to get all scientific.
Then that is something you must take up with God. Precision in wording for a scientific mind.
I think He is powerful enough to have guarded what He wanted to be written for all generations.
Then, be happy with your decision.
There are many that don't understand that. There are many that have no concept of the hidden treasures in His word...nor will they ever.
Not if I can help it.
No, I went to the dentist today for a crown. If I can't get you to see that the earth is a circle means...the earth is round then it would just be adding more pain to my day.
No thank you...it is of no interest to me. I do wonder why it wasn't listed in the dictionary?
Smartmouth?
What tree what came from? Your "smartmouth" comment (not saying you made a smartmouth comment but your reference to one) or geocentric?
Yes, I know. And, no...personal interpretations aren't needed for it is written. One just needs eyes to see.
Picking = selecting, not provision. You are selectively choosing the one definition that applies and ignoring the others, including the more precise geometric ones that are less ambiguous.
Well, those suggesting that it is an option have provided evidence as to why it is - you are providing nothing but "nuh-uh!" If you want to convince people otherwise, address those arguments.
As has been pointed out several times, this is because you already know what shape the earth is from reference to something else that is not the Bible, but you seem to be in total denial of this line of reasoning - not to mention your wilful mangling of basic geometric concepts.
Nothing stopping you putting the words in your post. Doesn't mean it is remotely logical, justifiable, or consistent with your literalistic stance - so work on that before calling what fellow Christians believe evil, k?
The earth is much older than 14000 years old and was not formed in a day, same goes for life.
You hang around mainly with non-evolutionists? There's your problem.
Given that people are making scientific claims based on it, there absolutely is a need to get scientific in response. Don't like it? Stop making claims that can be addressed with it.
You do realise "but it's sooooo simple" is used by everyone who thinks their personal interpretations of the Bible make up THE TRUTH, right? Why should it be convincing coming from you and not from the other thousands of people who have very high opinions of their opinions?
Doesn't really bother me, as I see no need to make scientific claims from the Bible, unlike some. I would be content for them to stop doing so when they have neither the logic nor the knowledge to support them adequately
Then why use a word that has 17 definitions?
I'm happy with the decision. What gets my goat is when other Christians think that the sheer reality-altering power they think goes with their own opinion gives them the right to demean and dismiss the views of other Christians based on a shoddy illogical foundation.
Or of the hidden treasures in God's creation, so obsessed are they with insisting on missing the point of their favourite Bible passages.
From our discussion so far, colour me not at all worried
I agree, continuing to proceed with such a flawed argument wouldn't be a good idea for you.
Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Took me all of five seconds to find.
Making smartmouth remarks about mystical geocentrism instead of doing a five-second google search.
And they would say the same thing, so that is not a convincing argument for either
That would be the perfect, which we see back in verse 8 "the man he had formed". What the waw consecutives in verse 18 & 19 tell us is that the verbs occur consecutively.
God said... then God formed... then God brought.
Adam did not evolve into other races...nor did Noah. All races, mankind, were created on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth.
.
Did the "pillars of the Christian church," inspire the Bible?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?