Examining Genesis...

[Calypsis4]

Who are you to pick and choose how literally to take a verse?

Who are you to 'pick and choose' to reject what Moses, Jesus, and the writers of scripture told us about the history of the creation?

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

 

[Mallon]

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

Evolutionary creationists also don't believe that the earth is flat and that the sky is solid like Job tells us, or that the earth is immobile and sits on a foundation of pillars like the Psalms tell us.
Aye, we're terrible Chrisitians.

 

[Calypsis4]

How does citing the Genesis creation account make it historical?
If I cited one of Jesus' parables, would that suddenly make it historical?
Not sure I understand your reasoning here.

1. Because what is said in the plain text is explained by both Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the writers of the N.T. No one has a right to declare it non-historical when they all made it plain that the creation was literal and the characters mentioned did things that had such an effect upon everything that happened subsequent to the six day creation and fall of man.

2. The family lineage of Jesus Christ cannot be mythologized or spoken of as in error if He is truly heir to the throne of David as Isaiah 9:6 tells us. What Luke said about his family before Abraham matches exactly the antediluvian fathers as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 5. The Jews who kept the archives in Jerusalem did not enter mythological characters into family lineage. Luke knew this and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he included all 77 names from Jesus back to Adam. It was a complete list that agreed completely with what Moses revealed.

3. Concerning Jesus parables; the Holy Spirit informs us that He spoke in parables. (Matthew 13:3, 10, 13, 34, 35,) etc. That is not a problem. But nowhere do the scriptures suggest or even hint that the history of Genesis is parable or mere poetry.

Any other position is unbelief and it places God's Word in question.

 

[Mallon]

1. Because what is said in the plain text is explained by both Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the writers of the N.T. No one has a right to declare it non-historical when they all made it plain that the creation was literal and the characters mentioned did things that had such an effect upon everything that happened subsequent to the six day creation and fall of man.

I agree that that explanation makes sense under a concordist hermeneutic. But again, who is to say that we should be operating under a concordist hermeneutic? The ancients certainly didn't. So why should we?

2. The family lineage of Jesus Christ cannot be mythologized or spoken of as in error if He is truly hier to the throne of David as Isaiah 9:6 tells us. What Luke said about his family before Abraham matches exactly the antediluvian fathers as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 5. The Jews who kept the archives in Jerusalem did not enter mythological characters into family lineage. Luke knew this and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he included all 77 names from Jesus back to Adam. It was a complete list that agreed completely with what Moses revealed.

So which genealogy am I supposed to "believe"? The one presented in the Old Testament or the one presented by Matthew? Because they don't agree. Many Bible scholars have argued that they don't agree because Matthew was more interested in presenting numerology rather than an accurate depiction of Christ's lineage. Could it be that assuming a concordist hermeneutic misses the intention of Scripture?

 

[Calypsis4]

Evolutionary creationists also don't believe that the earth is flat and that the sky is solid like Job tells us, or that the earth is immobile and sits on a foundation of pillars like the Psalms tell us.
Aye, we're terrible Chrisitians.

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that is.

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

You must consider these possiblities in the interpretation of scripture for God's Spirit made use of all grammatical expressions in the revelation of divine truth as are available to men in human language.

4. The foundations (pillars) are real but they are invisible. We don't know exactly what they are or how they work. But like the great wheels mentioned in Ezekiel we simply don't have enough information about them to go beyond the bare concept we are given.

The point is that ALL of God's Word is significant and there are no expressions made in the Bible that hang upon empty, poetic nothingness. But the fact that we don't have enough knowledge about those ideas that are mentioned does not justify rejection of them.

 

[crawfish]

Who are you to 'pick and choose' to reject what Moses, Jesus, and the writers of scripture told us about the history of the creation?

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

I'm not the one putting words in their mouth, taking scripture out of context, and applying meaning where meaning wasn't intended. In your attempt to interpret scripture literally, you decide to take something a little less than literally in order to support your overall point. I am just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in that.

The TRUTH is, Jesus didn't make the statement in order to prove some historical point. He was making a theological point, and using a bit of hyperbole to do it (as he did elsewhere). You are putting words and meaning in Jesus' mouth.

 

[Mallon]

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

Sure it does. Job tells us that it's shaped like a piece of clay stamped beneath a seal. Other verses tell us that the entire world can be seen from a high vantage point (a tree or a mountain). That can't be done on a sphere.
And you say I don't believe the Bible!

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that it.

Sure he does. He says it's "hard as a mirror cast of bronze." That's in keeping with a literal interpretation of the word "firmament". And if we claim to believe the Bible, we have to take it literally like you say, right?

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

The literal meaning of the word "immovable" is just that -- something that does not move. The Bible tells us this explicitly many times. And it also tells us why the earth doesn't move: because it sits on pillars.
Interpret things any other way and you're going back on what you said earlier about believing the Word of God by reading it literally.

 

[crawfish]

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

Are you suggesting the bible uses hyperbole and symbolism?

 

[Calypsis4]

In answer:

I agree that that explanation makes sense under a concordist hermeneutic. But again, who is to say that we should be operating under a concordist hermeneutic? The ancients certainly didn't. So why should we?

Because the Lord Jesus Christ said so, that's why.

Example:

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Notice that Jesus compared the destruction of the world by the flood with the destruction of the world by His literal 2nd coming. It is dishonest to conclude that Jesus, who wanted his followers to take his 2nd coming seriously and literally, would compare the most important event in the future of the world with a storybook tale that never actually happened. Everything in His language and in the language of the writers of scripture tells us that Genesis is literal throughout. It is history and no one can change that.

Going further, Christ speaks of Adam, Eve, Abel, and Noah in the same sense that he spoke of Abraham, and Lot and his wife. There are no hints that they were not all historical characters whose lives and actions had great bearing on the world and left a mark in human lives unto this day.


So which genealogy am I supposed to "believe"? The one presented in the Old Testament or the one presented by Matthew? Because they don't agree. Many Bible scholars have argued that they don't agree because Matthew was more interested in presenting numerology rather than an accurate depiction of Christ's lineage. Could it be that assuming a concordist hermeneutic misses the intention of Scripture?

If you are a Christian you are supposed to believe all of them. The errors are only in your imagination. Jesus said there are no errors in His holy Word. ("the scripture cannot be broken..." etc. John 10)

But the truth is that the chronolgies in scripture are given are from a different perspective in each account. Genesis 5 Moses gives us the antedilivan fathers who lived up until Noah. Matthew gives Christ family lineage on Josephs side of the family. Luke gives the perspective of Christ's family from Mary's side of the family as it can be traced all the way back to Adam. So the lists are not going to have all the same name on each. End of line.

 

[Calypsis4]

I'm not the one putting words in their mouth, taking scripture out of context, and applying meaning where meaning wasn't intended. In your attempt to interpret scripture literally, you decide to take something a little less than literally in order to support your overall point. I am just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in that.

The TRUTH is, Jesus didn't make the statement in order to prove some historical point. He was making a theological point, and using a bit of hyperbole to do it (as he did elsewhere). You are putting words and meaning in Jesus' mouth.

No, I reject that. His words were reality past and He was warning about reality future. When parabolic or symbolic expressions are made we are usually informed, just as I noted earlier. But the body of scripture is historical/literal and we are responsible for believing what He says about the past. If we won't believe what He says about the past as it pertains to the creation, life, death, the curse, and the consequences of mans sin in the destruction of the flood then what would compel us to believe what Jesus told us about life, death, heaven, hell, and the consequences of sin that are mentioned as it pertains to the future?

If we can't believe what God's Word so plainly told us about the past then why have any confidence that it tells us the truth about the future? Perhaps eternal life itself is a mere 'poetic' expression. The position you are espousing is unbelief.

 

[Calypsis4]

Are you suggesting the bible uses hyperbole and symbolism?

Of course it does. But that fact doesn't let you nor those of your persuasion off the hook. In English grammar we learn the use of metaphor, similie, hyperbole, etc. and how to recognize them. This is an objective science, not guesswork. One can tell by the nature of a text of almost any passage and determine by its context whether it is literal or otherwise.

Tell me, does, (1) "Once upon a time..." as compared with (2) "And in the six hundredth year of his life, the fourth month, and the fourth day, he went and built..." give you a difficult time in determining which one is meant to be literal and which one is not?

You and those like you are using tortured logic to try to wrest the scriptures from their intended meaning that God did exactly what He inspired Moses to write in understandable terms. Those things that happened were repeated by the prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and most of all by Jesus Himself as being actual events in time and space of the distant past and they never hinted otherwise.

 

[Calypsis4]

Sure it does. Job tells us that it's shaped like a piece of clay stamped beneath a seal. Other verses tell us that the entire world can be seen from a high vantage point (a tree or a mountain). That can't be done on a sphere.
And you say I don't believe the Bible!

I reject that notion also. It can if the surface being 'imprinted' has a 25,000 miles circumfernce. This is not a problem for God, it is only a problem for you. The fact is that I have two pictures of spherical seals as used by the ancients including kings. I cannot post them because I don't have the required number of posts yet.

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that it.
​

Sure he does. He says it's "hard as a mirror cast of bronze." That's in keeping with a literal interpretation of the word "firmament". And if we claim to believe the Bible, we have to take it literally like you say, right?

No.

And just what translation of 'scripture' did you quote from? The RVB (Reversed Vision Translation)? Quote the entire passage; tell us who said it (Did God say it?) and the translation you use to justify this argument.

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.
​

The literal meaning of the word "immovable" is just that -- something that does not move. The Bible tells us this explicitly many times. And it also tells us why the earth doesn't move: because it sits on pillars.
Interpret things any other way and you're going back on what you said earlier about believing the Word of God by reading it literally.

That is the tortured logic I mentioned earlier. You seem to be adept at it. It appears that YOU are 'immovable' on this position and you won't fall out of the TE 'orbit' no matter what I say. Hmm, you are doing BOTH things at once. How can that be? If you don't get my drift then you aren't thinking clearly.

 

[crawfish]

No, I reject that. His words were reality past and He was warning about reality future. When parabolic or symbolic expressions are made we are usually informed, just as I noted earlier. But the body of scripture is historical/literal and we are responsible for believing what He says about the past. If we won't believe what He says about the past as it pertains to the creation, life, death, the curse, and the consequences of mans sin in the destruction of the flood then what would compel us to believe what Jesus told us about life, death, heaven, hell, and the consequences of sin that are mentioned as it pertains to the future?

If we can't believe what God's Word so plainly told us about the past then why have any confidence that it tells us the truth about the future? Perhaps eternal life itself is a mere 'poetic' expression. The position you are espousing is unbelief.

I would say you are putting your faith in the wrong things. My faith stems from feeling God work in my life and in the lives of others. My trust in the bible comes in its power to speak to my life and each and every other human being in history, barring language, culture and time - not in some belief that He revealed "secret scientific information" in the bible.

The position I am espousing treats scripture as the complex literature it is - where the plain reading is often wrong.

 

[Calypsis4]

I would say you are putting your faith in the wrong things. My faith stems from feeling God work in my life and in the lives of others. My trust in the bible comes in its power to speak to my life and each and every other human being in history, barring language, culture and time - not in some belief that He revealed "secret scientific information" in the bible.

The position I am espousing treats scripture as the complex literature it is - where the plain reading is often wrong.

If you expect God to truly work in your life as you hope He will then you can start by believing what He says. The plain text of scripture should always be understood in a literal sense unless there is excellent reason to understand it otherwise. It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

You avoided the strength of my argument. But that is what TE's do with the historical aspect of scripture. They would be embarrassed to hold to a literal rendition of the Genesis account of the 6 day creation not realizing that to arbitrarily turn that part of history into a poetic and/or symbolic message begs the question: "Why accept any other parts of scripture as literal...i.e. the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and/or 2nd coming?"

But that causes those of us who believe what the Lord said about Creation (Mark 10:6) & Noah's flood (Matt. 24) to ask, "Why believe any of it had a supernatural content. Why not water it all down to nothing...then maybe the WORLD will believe our gospel!

That's insane.

 

[crawfish]

If you expect God to truly work in your life as you hope He will then you can start by believing what He says. The plain text of scripture should always be understood in a literal sense unless there is excellent reason to understand it otherwise. It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

True. And TE's have found that there are excellent reasons. Sometimes, the literal reading is the wrong reading. We can provide many links and books if you would like to study it.

You avoided the strength of my argument. But that is what TE's do with the historical aspect of scripture. They would be embarrassed to hold to a literal rendition of the Genesis account of the 6 day creation not realizing that to arbitrarily turn that part of history into a poetic and/or symbolic message begs the question: "Why accept any other parts of scripture as literal...i.e. the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and/or 2nd coming?"

Oh, I definitely believe that you have to have good reasons to take scripture an any way, even literally. The reason I accept that Genesis is not presenting a literal recollection of events is twofold: 1) there are too many signs that the earth and universe are much older than scripture seems to imply from a literal reading, and 2) the scriptures fully support a non-literal reading. I accept that the flood referenced in Genesis was local because of the same kind of reasons. Neither forces me to deny any other miracles.

But that causes those of us who believe what the Lord said about Creation (Mark 10:6) & Noah's flood (Matt. 24) to ask, "Why believe any of it had a supernatural content. Why not water it all down to nothing...then maybe the WORLD will believe our gospel!

That's insane.

What is insane is to think that we can insist that reality is not reality because of our interpretation of scripture and expect the world to agree. If they KNOW we are wrong about a simple thing like the age of the earth, then why should they believe us about anything else?

I am not ashamed to own my Lord or to defend His cause. I am disappointed that many people view us as crackpots, fools and idiots because some choose, very loudly, to hold as truths things scripture does not claim.

 

[metherion]

When parabolic or symbolic expressions are made we are usually informed, just as I noted earlier

The key word being... USUALLY! Not always, not 100% of the time. And since Jesus is God, and didn’t usually tell the people he was preaching to it was a parable (it was often an aside to the apostles explaining it) you can’t know that God didn’t mean for other things to be a parable without telling us, too. Correct?

If we won't believe what He says about the past as it pertains to the creation, life, death, the curse, and the consequences of mans sin in the destruction of the flood then what would compel us to believe what Jesus told us about life, death, heaven, hell, and the consequences of sin that are mentioned as it pertains to the future?

Believing that what He inspired must be taken literally DOES NOT EQUAL not believing what He inspired.

That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

No, it doesn’t. You were told to not move from an area. This means there was an area, explicitly stated, that you could move around in.

No such clause is given in the Bible. The Bible does not say “The Earth is immovable from the orbit I, the Lord your God, placed it in.”, or anything similar. It states “the earth is immovable”. There is no clause about an area it could move around in. Your analogy is flawed and fails. Sorry.

The foundations (pillars) are real but they are invisible. We don't know exactly what they are or how they work. But like the great wheels mentioned in Ezekiel we simply don't have enough information about them to go beyond the bare concept we are given.

But I thought the earth was hung upon nothing, not supported by pillars...

They would be embarrassed to hold to a literal rendition of the Genesis account of the 6 day creation not realizing that to arbitrarily turn that part of history into a poetic and/or symbolic message begs the question: "Why accept any other parts of scripture as literal...i.e. the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and/or 2nd coming?"

But that causes those of us who believe what the Lord said about Creation (Mark 10:6) & Noah's flood (Matt. 24) to ask, "Why believe any of it had a supernatural content. Why not water it all down to nothing...then maybe the WORLD will believe our gospel!

That's insane.

It is insane. It’s also not what we do.

Your premise for this entire argument is false. Turning the Genesis account of a 6 day creation into an allegory does NOT beg the question of why should anything else be literal. It helps us understand the culture and ideas of the people who wrote it with God’s inspiration to get the messages He wanted across. To take many of these stories literally is to miss their meaning. Others, to take them figuratively is to miss their meaning entirely.

Furthermore, please stop equating “agreeing with a ‘literal’ viewpoint that leads to belief in YEC” with ‘believing’. We believe in the Bible as much as you do. We believe in Jesus as much as you do. We believe He came down from Heaven by being born of a virgin, died on a cross for the sins of humankind, rose from the dead to defeat death forever, and ascended back into Heaven just as much as you do.

One of the other key points is realizing what the meaning of two things most YECs (and us TEs) take for granted right off the bat.

That:
1) In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.

And

2) God is not the author of confusion.

Two axions widely held by, well, everyone.

But, what does this mean? This means that God authored TWO things. Technically 3, but w/e. Numbers one (and two) are the earth and the heavens. Number 3 is the Scripture He inspired. Doesn’t even say ‘literally wrote word for word.’

So, if there is to be no confusion, then the things God authored must agree, correct? After all, if they don’t, things would get pretty confusing. So think: if the evidence we find of the past in God’s Creation doesn’t mesh with one specific view of the past from God’s Inspired Scripture. We can test the evidence we have, make prediction, see what is right. If that and our interpretation of Scripture collide, guess which is wrong? I know which is wrong for me, but I still believe in Scripture. I accept I made a fallible human mistake, and see what God REALLY meant.

The fact is that I have two pictures of spherical seals as used by the ancients including kings. I cannot post them because I don't have the required number of posts yet.

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. But in addition to the pictures (Which you could also PM to one of us and have us post them for you, I would certainly be willing to do that), you would also need to show that they are from the correct time period and the correct geographical area for the Jews to have been familiar with them. And furthermore, was the clay holding the seal left spherical, or are the seals themselves spherical? Big difference with tremendous importance to your point.


Metherion

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...

What is insane is to think that we can insist that reality is not reality because of our interpretation of scripture and expect the world to agree. If they KNOW we are wrong about a simple thing like the age of the earth, then why should they believe us about anything else?

I am not ashamed to own my Lord or to defend His cause. I am disappointed that many people view us as crackpots, fools and idiots because some choose, very loudly, to hold as truths things scripture does not claim.

QFT

 

[Mallon]

I reject that notion also. It can if the surface being 'imprinted' has a 25,000 miles circumfernce. This is not a problem for God, it is only a problem for you. The fact is that I have two pictures of spherical seals as used by the ancients including kings. I cannot post them because I don't have the required number of posts yet.

...

No.

And just what translation of 'scripture' did you quote from? The RVB (Reversed Vision Translation)? Quote the entire passage; tell us who said it (Did God say it?) and the translation you use to justify this argument.

...

That is the tortured logic I mentioned earlier. You seem to be adept at it. It appears that YOU are 'immovable' on this position and you won't fall out of the TE 'orbit' no matter what I say. Hmm, you are doing BOTH things at once. How can that be? If you don't get my drift then you aren't thinking clearly.

I see we're starting to cover the same ground peace4ever and I covered a few weeks ago. I'll respond to you the same way I responded to her, then, by giving a description of the earth that is in complete correspondence with a concordist reading of the Scriptures (the same hermeneutic you subscribe to):

[FONT=&quot]How does the Bible describe the shape of the Earth?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Job 38:13-14[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Isaiah 40:22[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Matthew 4:8[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Daniel 4:10-11[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 19:4[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Their voice [a] goes out into all the earth, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] their words to the ends of the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 104:2[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He wraps himself in light as with a garment; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] he stretches out the heavens like a tent[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the Earth as flat.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How does the Bible describe the movement of the Earth?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]1 Samuel 2:8[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]1 Chronicles 16:30[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Job 38:4[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 96:10[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 104:5[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 93:1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]…The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the Earth as immovable.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is the Earth’s foundation?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Job 9:6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 75:3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the Earth as resting on a foundation of pillars.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How does the Bible describe the heavens?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Genesis 7:11[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Genesis 8:2[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Deuteronomy 28:12[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]2 Kings 7:2[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, ‘Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?’ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ‘You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!’”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Job 37:18[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Malachi 3:10[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“‘Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.’”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Ezekiel 1:22[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the heavens as a solid, crystalline dome above the Earth, with windows to allow the heavenly waters through.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How does the Bible describe the movement of the Sun?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Joshua 10:12[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 19:4-6[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Ecclesiastes 1:5[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Habakkuk 3:11[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Psalm 50:1[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Mighty One, God, the LORD, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] speaks and summons the earth [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] from the rising of the sun to the place where it sets.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the Sun as moving about the immobile Earth in a circuit. It was said to “stand still” by Joshua’s command.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How does the Bible describe the stars?[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Isaiah 14:12[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How you have fallen from heaven, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] O morning star, son of the dawn! [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] You have been cast down to the earth, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] you who once laid low the nations![/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Daniel 8:10[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Matthew 24:29[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Immediately after the distress of those days [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] " 'the sun will be darkened, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and the moon will not give its light; [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] the stars will fall from the sky, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Mark 13:25[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]the stars will fall from the sky, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Revelation 6:13[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Revelation 12:4[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Bible describes the stars as pinpricks of light set in the firmament, and as capable of falling to Earth.

[/FONT]If you can get a spherical-earthed, heliocentric cosmology out of that while maintaining a consistent concordist hermeneutic, then I hope you will show us all how, because even the fathers of the Reformation agreed in large part with this interpretation I've just presented. If not, I only hope you'll rethink your insistence that in order to be faithful to Scripture, one must assume your brand concordism.

(By the way, here's a picture of an ancient clay seal -- called a bulla -- that dates back to biblical times:

It's flat.)

 

[gluadys]

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that it.

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

You must consider these possiblities in the interpretation of scripture for God's Spirit made use of all grammatical expressions in the revelation of divine truth as are available to men in human language.

4. The foundations (pillars) are real but they are invisible. We don't know exactly what they are or how they work. But like the great wheels mentioned in Ezekiel we simply don't have enough information about them to go beyond the bare concept we are given.

The point is that ALL of God's Word is significant and there are no expressions made in the Bible that hang upon empty, poetic nothingness. But the fact that we don't have enough knowledge about those ideas that are mentioned does not justify rejection of them.

Typically, the concordist who claims to read the text literally displays that he doesn't understand what reading a text literally means.

All of the above is a non-literal interpretation of the texts in question.

I won't debate their value. The point is that these interpretations are not in any way a literal reading of the text.

The question now is: why do you reject the literal meaning of these texts?

 

[Calypsis4]

In answer:

True. And TE's have found that there are excellent reasons. Sometimes, the literal reading is the wrong reading. We can provide many links and books if you would like to study it.

There are not only no 'excellent' reasons for not believing what Jesus and his apostles said about the historicity of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah, there are none. You are using pure human reasoning without a scriptural basis. The Lord is not pleased with this.

Jesus used the example of Abel's murder in the same breath with Zecharias in Luke & Matthew.

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." Luke 11:51.

It is plainly clear Jesus was referring to two historical facts and drawing upon those events to make a point in His message.

Who therefore, has the spiritual right to declare Able as a mythical or storybook character who was not(according to you), after all murdered while affirming that Zacharias was a historical one even though they are both mentioned in the same verse of scripture? It is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty in the highest degree. Who can respect such a view?

Not only so but Paul made it clear that it was by Adam's transgression that both sin and death entered into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12.

So we have the reason for both the fall of man and the entrance of death into the world...which, if theistic evolution were true we are forced into utter darkness and ignorance as to when, how, and who was involved in the matter of sin, death, and the fall is concerned. If Adam was not a real person who actually sinned and therefore brought the fall of man as it now effects the whole human race then neither you nor any of your unbelieving comrades have got a clue as to who committed the first sin, what actually happened, nor how it was transmitted to the rest of the human race.

Were Adam's mother and father apes? Did they sin?

Oh, I definitely believe that you have to have good reasons to take scripture an any way, even literally. The reason I accept that Genesis is not presenting a literal recollection of events is twofold: 1) there are too many signs that the earth and universe are much older than scripture seems to imply from a literal reading, and 2) the scriptures fully support a non-literal reading. I accept that the flood referenced in Genesis was local because of the same kind of reasons. Neither forces me to deny any other miracles.

No, there aren't. You have believed lies that the earth is million and/or billions of yrs old. You have been listening to the wrong people.

What is insane is to think that we can insist that reality is not reality because of our interpretation of scripture and expect the world to agree. If they KNOW we are wrong about a simple thing like the age of the earth, then why should they believe us about anything else?

Reality is what God says in His word: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

The chronologies of Moses and Luke are accurate. You are in error.

I am not ashamed to own my Lord or to defend His cause. I am disappointed that many people view us as crackpots, fools and idiots because some choose, very loudly, to hold as truths things scripture does not claim.

I see your personal attack. Do the moderators allow this?

Since you have no scripture to support an evolutionary interpretation and you can't quote any it is of no surprise that you stoop to such tactics.