Faith Presumptions

[Vance]

I think one way of looking at our approaches to this issue is where, on a spectrum, we place our “faith presumptions”. By this I mean those things which we accept by faith, not by reason (even if reasonable), and would use as a starting point presumption against which all must be measured. For these things, we would use the word “since” when discussing them, rather than “if”. For example, starting at the far end of the spectrum, we would say:

“Since God exists . . .”

then all kinds of things.

And I think that all Christians would agree that we should qualify everything and measure everything, including our study of the natural world, by that “faith presumption”. There are many other “faith presumptions” common to all Christians, “Since God created everything”, “Since Jesus is the Son of God”, “Since Jesus came to die for our sins”, etc.

The question for the topic of origins is how far down you shift your “faith presumptions” and whether you shift it too far. Personally, I do say “Since God created everything . . .” and I think most would agree with this one. This is a presumption of faith, and from that starting point, and I would measure all scientific discoveries against this statement, so that the sentence might be completed “. . . however life started, it was part of His creation and His plan.", for example. Every conclusion I would reach about our understanding of nature would be seen through that lens and be interpreted by that presumption.

And, importantly, everything which was not compatible with that faith presumption would be ultimately rejected. Thus a statement that the universe was created without God would be rejected.

Stepping a bit further down the spectrum, I hold just as strongly to the idea that the Scripture is Holy and God’s messages to all of us. So, I would say “Since the Bible is God’s Holy Scripture . . .” and all is measured against that. I even go further and say that the Scripture is completely inerrant in the presentation of it’s intended message, so I would say “Since Scripture is inerrant in the presentation of the message intended by God . . .” without compromise on this idea.

Thus, any statement, by anyone, on any subject, that Scripture is not God's message to us because of X or Y would be rejected.

So, against all these “faith presumptions”, all else, including scientific inquiry, is measured. In this way, I can say with great conviction that, contrary to the assertion of many YEC's, I do not let scientific knowledge control Scripture. My “faith presumptions” trump all else, including what any scientist may say about the history of our planet or how it works. But in the areas not mandated by a faith presumption, I use the word “if” instead. “If God created by allowing a form of abiogenesis” or “If God created a literal Garden”.

What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.

 

[California Tim]

What YEC’s do is shift their “faith presumption” all the way down to “Since God created the world in six 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago . . .” and then measure all against THAT. I have no problem with having faith presumptions against which we measure scientific conclusions. I do that myself. I just think that the YEC’s have made a “since” out of something that should be an “if”.

Let me clarify this issue for you from a YEC point of view. Our basis of faith is upon the following as it pertains to this issue:

"Since the proper interpretation of the Bible is revealed within itself......." ​

Nothing more, nothing less. No need to run out of bounds or sidestep the issue. We feel the strength of the argument in favor of the literal historical nature of the Genesis creation account is contained within scripture itself and proceed from that point.

 

[Vance]

Let me clarify this issue for you from a YEC point of view. Our basis of faith is upon the following as it pertains to this issue:

"Since the proper interpretation of the Bible is revealed within itself......." ​

Nothing more, nothing less. No need to run out of bounds or sidestep the issue. We feel the strength of the argument in favor of the literal historical nature of the Genesis creation account is contained within scripture itself and proceed from that point.

Was the proper reading of all those geocentrism verses able to be revealed within the Bible itself? You acknowledge that Christians read these passages incorrectly up until the scientists discovered the truth of heliocentrism (and they would have read it "geocentrically" from the earliest times, basically from the time they were written). Why didn't they just go to those places in Scripture which would have explained the proper reading? Where are those passages?

 

[California Tim]

Was the proper reading of all those geocentrism verses able to be revealed within the Bible itself? You acknowledge that Christians read these passages incorrectly up until the scientists discovered the truth of heliocentrism (and they would have read it "geocentrically" from the earliest times, basically from the time they were written). Why didn't they just go to those places in Scripture which would have explained the proper reading? Where are those passages?

The answer to your question is yes. And I 'll ackowledge that "SOME" Christians read the passages incorrectly. You seem to insinuate that all of Christendom was guilty of error until science "came to the rescue".

 

[Vance]

The answer to your question is yes. And I 'll ackowledge that "SOME" Christians read the passages incorrectly. You seem to insinuate that all of Christendom was guilty of error until science "came to the rescue".

Well, all Christians DID read those verses from a geocentric point of view, since they were all geocentrists. In fact, they were written from a geocentric point of view probably because the human writer was a geocentrist. When they saw Genesis describing the earth being created first and all else around it, they saw this as a geocentric universe. When they read that the sun stood still, they read this as literally that the sun stopped moving because it was the sun which was moving. It fit with their view of the way the universe worked from the very beginning. So, yes, when heliocentrism came along, it was not only a challenge to the way they thought the universe worked, it also was a challenge to the way they had been reading Scripture. In fact, they used Scripture to back up their "universe-view"!

And, yes, none of these Christians were able to correct this misreading until the truths about God's Creation were discovered. But, keep in mind that it was not "error" to read it from a geocentric perspective. Since whether you read it geocentrically or as a literary device has no theological impact, it was not error to read it either way. What was error was insisting that their geocentric reading was mandated by Scripture.

But, regardless of that, we agree that some Christians had been reading the Scriptures incorrectly, and you also assert that all such false readings can be corrected from within Scripture itself. But I don't see how this false reading could have been corrected from within Scripture alone. Can you show me how it could be done?

 

[California Tim]

But, regardless of that, we agree that some Christians had been reading the Scriptures incorrectly, and you also assert that all such false readings can be corrected from within Scripture itself. But I don't see how this false reading could have been corrected from within Scripture alone. Can you show me how it could be done?

I can demonstrate that the Bible never taught geocentrism as an issue to begin with. You, once again, presume to know the motivation of the author and assert that a personal bias inevitably resulted in an erroneous account based on a science-illiterate culture. What I see in the verses used to justify geocentrism is a simple obervation of fact without having attempted to explain the mechanics.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let me clarify this issue for you from a YEC point of view. Our basis of faith is upon the following as it pertains to this issue:

"Since the proper interpretation of the Bible is revealed within itself......." ​

Nothing more, nothing less. No need to run out of bounds or sidestep the issue. We feel the strength of the argument in favor of the literal historical nature of the Genesis creation account is contained within scripture itself and proceed from that point.

where in Scripture is the table of contents?
ie the canon...

 

[Vance]

I can demonstrate that the Bible never taught geocentrism as an issue to begin with. You, once again, presume to know the motivation of the author and assert that a personal bias inevitably resulted in an erroneous account based on a science-illiterate culture. What I see in the verses used to justify geocentrism is a simple obervation of fact without having attempted to explain the mechanics.

Tim, I will say this over and over. I agree that the Scripture does not teach geocentrism. This is not the issue. We are not talking here about what the Scripture actually says, but what the geocentrists INSISTED it said (and some still insist it says). I agree those Christians GOT IT WRONG. The text was, indeed, simply describing things the way it would look, the way they already viewed the solar system and the universe, and God let it be written that way. God could have inspired the writer to say that the earth stopped spinning (assuming that is how He did it), so as to avoid later confusion, but this would have caused a lot of confusion for the initial readers (not to mention the very confused writer!) since they had no idea the earth moved at all! God did not do that.

So, God let the Scripture be written from a geocentric point of view, in Genesis, in Joshua, in the "earth is fixed and unmoving" verses, etc. If you had asked ANY Christian at the time whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa, he would have thought you were a bit odd, then said the sun revolved around the earth of course. If asked whether the Bible said anything about this, they would have said "sure!" and pointed to these various verses. But most never even had to consider the issue.

The problem arose when heliocentrism was proposed. Now, the Christians who positively asserted that the Scripture was contrary to this scientific principle were simply in error. They fell into this error because they held to an overly-literal reading, and because they had what they believed to be serious theological issues with the idea that the earth was just one of many planets circling a sun. This seemed to contradict not just the text of the Creation account, but it's entire meaning. The earth was created first, and all else around it and for it. If the sun was the center, not the earth, this put the whole "man-centered" universe under fire!

Since it seemed to contradict a literal reading of a number of texts AND raised severe theological challenges, they argued that the new scientific discovery was contrary to Scripture.

In the end, they had to acknowledge that they had gotten the theology wrong and that they had to re-think their theological points as well.

Now, before the science was pointed out to them, how could those Christians have discovered the truth from within Scripture?

I will tell you what DID happen. What happened was that once the scientific community had come to accept the heliocentric model as undeniable, the Body of Christ began to simply accept that their traditional reading had been incorrect, their theological concerns were unfounded, etc. Thus, they allowed the scientific discovery to INFORM their reading of Scripture.

 

[California Tim]

I will say this over and over. I agree that the Scripture does not teach geocentrism. This is not the issue. We are not talking here about what the Scripture actually says, but what the geocentrists INSISTED it said (and some still insist it says).

You'll have to pardon me my brother. What exactly are we arguing over then? We agree that scripture never taught geocentrism and that any resulting interpretation to the contrary was in error.

The text was, indeed, simply describing things the way it would look, the way they already viewed the solar system and the universe, and God let it be written that way.

Again, here you imply that the author assumed geocentrism - that he actually had - not a passive, but an active understanding of the universe and wrote from that perspective. Can you simply substantiate that? Otherwise what was written was simply observation and not a declaration of astronomy.

God could have inspired the writer to say that the earth stopped spinning (assuming that is how He did it), so as to avoid later confusion, but this would have caused a lot of confusion for the initial readers (not to mention the very confused writer!) since they had no idea the earth moved at all! God did not do that.

The point remains that God did not have it written another way. That is ALL we can say. You continue to assume motive - only this time on behalf of God. As you noted, even now you are not able to discern the exact method used to accomplish the phenomenon. IF knowing that method was essential to the message, then is it not likely it would have been included? Furthermore if God relegated his messages to only that which confused no one, then we could throw several books of the Bible out right now, not the least of which would include Ezekial, Daniel, and Revelation.

In the end, they had to acknowledge that they had gotten the theology wrong and that they had to re-think their theological points as well.

I did not wish to cut and paste the whole response, but this fairly sums up my feelings on the issue as it relates now to TE'ists. Potentially Christians? Sure- just as likely as not, but on the matter of creation, in error theologically nonetheless.

Now, before the science was pointed out to them, how could those Christians have discovered the truth from within Scripture?

For starters, they could have avoided assuming the text represented something it did not. So I would say the same way any heresy is dealt with and exposed would apply equally to geocentrists of the day. Once the issue was challenged and researched, it took little effort to understand the error - from a Biblical point of view. I'm sure you ask "how?", and the answer is simple: The text NEVER TAUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Therefore to use it in opposition to the science of the day was ridiculous. This, however is not the case before us today with the creation account.

I will tell you what DID happen. What happened was that once the scientific community had come to accept the heliocentric model as undeniable, the Body of Christ began to simply accept that their traditional reading had been incorrect, their theological concerns were unfounded, etc. Thus, they allowed the scientific discovery to INFORM their reading of Scripture.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I once again submit, the reason this worked was because the text used to justify geocentrism never taught it in the first place. This, however did not place a precedent on how all subsequent difficult Biblical passages could be interpreted, nor did it elevate science to new plateaus, subjugating Biblical interpretation in the process. It most certainly differs from the debate at hand today. The Genesis account clearly offers a message in stark contrast to evolution, yet the only way many reconcile it is not to deny that it does indeed contradict science when read literally, but instead to mythologize and conveniently sweep it under the "secular carpet" of the currently prevailing science of origins.

 

[Vance]

You'll have to pardon me my brother. What exactly are we arguing over then? We agree that scripture never taught geocentrism and that any resulting interpretation to the contrary was in error.

Yes, right, in error! They thought they were reading it correctly, they believed it whole-heartedly, but they were wrong! Exactly. But how did they come to know that they were wrong? They would never have known they were wrong from within the text itself. It required a better understanding of God's Creation. But even then, they did not accept it for all the reasons I set out. Does this not sound familiar to you at all?

Again, here you imply that the author assumed geocentrism - that he actually had - not a passive, but an active understanding of the universe and wrote from that perspective. Can you simply substantiate that? Otherwise what was written was simply observation and not a declaration of astronomy.

Are you saying that you believe that some people believed in something other than geocentrism before Copernicus? This is not supported historically at all. Rather, the evidence shows that every culture from the earliest records (including Scripture, as we can see) believed that the sun and moon and stars all revolved around a fixed earth. Usually a flat earth with a dome over it, until a few hundred years before Christ.

It would have been a VERY odd occurance if the human author of any of the Biblical text was NOT a geocentrist.

The point remains that God did not have it written another way. That is ALL we can say. You continue to assume motive - only this time on behalf of God. As you noted, even now you are not able to discern the exact method used to accomplish the phenomenon. IF knowing that method was essential to the message, then is it not likely it would have been included? Furthermore if God relegated his messages to only that which confused no one, then we could throw several books of the Bible out right now, not the least of which would include Ezekial, Daniel, and Revelation.

Yes!!!! You know you are arguing against some standard literalist arguments in that paragraph? I have no idea why God allows texts to be written in a way that He knows will cause some confusion, but I am glad you accept that He does. Scripture is NOT always obvious, the "plain reading" is not always the correct one. I am not assuming motive at all, I am agreeing with you completely that the presentation of the message is all that God is concerned with, and He is not too concerned that it will cause controversy or disagreement later on if people misinterpret it to mean more than was intended. Again, does this not sound familiar?

I did not wish to cut and paste the whole response, but this fairly sums up my feelings on the issue as it relates now to TE'ists. Potentially Christians? Sure- just as likely as not, but on the matter of creation, in error theologically nonetheless.

True, it is very possible to be in error on the issue of origins and still be a Christian. I believe every YEC is in grave error on this point, but I believe they are all very likely Christians. But the point here is how we approach Scripture to determine who is in error. You say that the evidence MUST come from within the text itself, I say that this is not always sufficient, and that sometimes we should factor in the evidence from God's Creation. This was necessary in order to interpret those "geocentric" Scriptures correctly, so we know this is an allowable and even essential process at times.

For starters, they could have avoided assuming the text represented something it did not. So I would say the same way any heresy is dealt with and exposed would apply equally to geocentrists of the day. Once the issue was challenged and researched, it took little effort to understand the error - from a Biblical point of view. I'm sure you ask "how?", and the answer is simple: The text NEVER TAUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Therefore to use it in opposition to the science of the day was ridiculous. This, however is not the case before us today with the creation account.

There are two points to make here. First, until they were aware of the truth of heliocentrism, they believed those Scriptures were describing a geocentric universe. That is an incorrect reading. Without science to correct it, they would have gone on in that incorrectness, but not to anyone's harm, I agree.

Second, you say "once the issue was challenged". Would you agree then that when the scientific community presents a theory or conclusion that contradicts a particular, even traditional, reading of Scripture, we should consider our Scriptural position to see whether it absolutely requires whatever seems to contradict the scientific statement? And, if it is not absolutely required, we should consider abandoning that position?

It sounds like that is what you are saying the geocentrists should have done. They had traditionally held that the world was geocentric and that the Scripture supported this belief, both in literal text and in theological requirements. That was the traditional interpretation. Now science comes along and presents a theory that contradicts this traditional interpretation. You are saying that the Christians should have said "OK, let's look again at our interpretation, let's research it to see if our traditional belief really is what the Scripture absolutely presents and requires."

If this is what you are saying then I would agree with you completely. But you must remember that the Christians of the day very likely did that exact thing. They did have arguments in favor of the Biblical support for geocentrism (even though we disagree with them today), and argued them vehemently. Given the vague and poorly supported nature of the theory at the time, and the strength of tradition itself, it is no wonder they argued. Think of the theological implications in their minds of the earth not being the center and focal point of the universe given the way Genesis 1 is written.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I once again submit, the reason this worked was because the text used to justify geocentrism never taught it in the first place. This, however did not place a precedent on how all subsequent difficult Biblical passages could be interpreted, nor did it elevate science to new plateaus, subjugating Biblical interpretation in the process. It most certainly differs from the debate at hand today. The Genesis account clearly offers a message in stark contrast to evolution, yet the only way many reconcile it is not to deny that it does indeed contradict science when read literally, but instead to mythologize and conveniently sweep it under the "secular carpet" of the currently prevailing science of origins.

Tell that to a modern geocentrist.

I don't see the YEC interpretation being any clearer or more required than the geocentric interpretation. If the sun was the truth, and I was on, say, earth with my TE beliefs, I would see YEC as Neptune and geocentrism as pluto. They are just variations of the same error. This is not meant flippantly or in a derogatory fashion, but just as an honest statement about how I see those two interpretations.

And, as is shown by the OP, I also do not believe that Biblical interpretation is subjugated to science (strawman), but only that it should definitely play a part in the interpretive process when relevant.

 

[mhess13]

more geocentrism. Vance, you sound like a badly scratched barry Manilow record

 

[California Tim]

I don't see the YEC interpretation being any clearer or more required than the geocentric interpretation.

On the one hand we are using an example that is not taught in the Bible and saying science proved that point - ala geocentrism.

On the other hand we are saying that a point clearly taught in the Bible, cannot be true and thus the Biblical version must be reconciled - ala 6 days of creation as literal history.

In the first example, science confirmed what we know to be Biblical truth. Said another way, it complimented the Biblical text since the Biblical text never taught otherwise. The Biblical version recorded a simple observation - it did not claim to represented a geocentric universe, thus the scientific discovery did not refute Biblical doctirne in any way. It refuted heresy. However, if the Bible had clearly stated a geocentric doctrine, then what?

In the second example, we have a clear statement of creation, we have a clear method of creation, and we have geneologies to bolster the historical nature of the text, we have evidence within the Bible that the text was considered historical and not allegorical. Since the apparent reading of Genesis clearly contradicts that which prevailing science contends, now we are comparing apples to oranges by using the geocentric argument. Now science is superceding a principle message of the Bible and this time it is the science that is in error, not the Biblical text.

In a nutshell, with the first example, science remained in subjugation to the Biblical text. In the second example Biblical text is being brought into subjugation to science. I see two very different issues here personally.

 

[Vance]

On the one hand we are using an example that is not taught in the Bible and saying science proved that point - ala geocentrism.

On the other hand we are saying that a point clearly taught in the Bible, cannot be true and thus the Biblical version must be reconciled - ala 6 days of creation as literal history..

No, this is not the case at all. First, we are using an example that to the reader of the day, LOOKED as if it was taught in the Bible. Genesis, they would say, CLEARLY puts the earth at the center of the universe and all else created around it and specifically and solely for its benefit. Heliocentrism, they would say (and do say now) completely contradicts this literal text and very important theological points. Again, they believed that this was as clear as you believe a young earth to be. Secondly, you are begging the question by saying that the six day creation is "clearly taught" since it is not clear at all to many Chrsitians.

In the first example, science confirmed what we know to be Biblical truth. Said another way, it complimented the Biblical text since the Biblical text never taught otherwise. The Biblical version recorded a simple observation - it did not claim to represented a geocentric universe, thus the scientific discovery did not refute Biblical doctirne in any way. It refuted heresy. However, if the Bible had clearly stated a geocentric doctrine, then what?.

First of all, how is heliocentrism "Biblical truth"? There is nothing at all in Scripture that presents heliocentrism. It is a truth of God's Creation, sure, but the ONLY references in Scripture which would apply to this issue are those which seem to point to geocentrism, not heliocentrism.

Further, ou are only talking about the Joshua story, not the very Creation account itself, or those verses which say that the earth is fixed and immovable. This was plenty clear to the readers of Scripture before Copernicus showed them that it might mean something else. Would they have made such a fuss if it was just a matter of an off-hand reference that could be read either way, etc. No, this was serious stuff.

It is only AFTER Copernicus that we can revisit these texts and find other ways of reading them that fit what we know about how the universe actually works. We can see now that the Bible does not teach geocentrism as a doctrine, but that is only after being forced to find that new interpretation after Copernicus.

I would say that the same is true now. Evolution is not taught in Scripture any more than heliocentrism is taught in Scripture. It is "complimentary" to Scripture since the Biblical text, when properly read, does not teach anything to contradict it. The Biblical version simply used the literary style of the day to discuss epic events - it did not claim to represented an actual six-day creation, thus the scientific discovery did not refute Biblical doctirne in any way.

In the second example, we have a clear statement of creation, we have a clear method of creation, and we have geneologies to bolster the historical nature of the text, we have evidence within the Bible that the text was considered historical and not allegorical. Since the apparent reading of Genesis clearly contradicts that which prevailing science contends, now we are comparing apples to oranges by using the geocentric argument. Now science is superceding a principle message of the Bible and this time it is the science that is in error, not the Biblical text..

But every one of your statements of fact are ones that many other Christians completely disagree with, so we are back to apples and apples again. If we actually accepted that what you say actually IS clear, then it would be different. But we simply do not. Unless and until you accept that the geocentrist saw their position as being JUST AS CLEAR as you do now, you will not see the parallel.

In a nutshell, with the first example, science remained in subjugation to the Biblical text. In the second example Biblical text is being brought into subjugation to science. I see two very different issues here personally.

No, in the first case, science aided in reaching a correct interpretation of Scripture. Without that scientific discovery, you would be in error on these verses today. In the second case, Biblical text is NEVER brought into subjugation to science. Once again, science can simply aid us in our interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Maccie]

Tim, I fear you have been led astray and deceived by Satan. The earth stands still! Look at this site and you will be appalled at your wayward theology!

http://www.fixedearth.com/a_small_young_universe.htm

I am afraid the arguments they use are so like the one's the YEC's use that I really cannot see any difference. They are convincing, Bible based - plenty of Biblical references, so how can you NOT believe in Geocentrism???

They say:
A non-moving earth at the center of our universe--with the sun and a stellatum of stars going round every day--is still a model that explains all the important phenomena in the known (i.e., the REAL, non VR) universe. Calculations requiring the utmost precision, i.e., calculations about moon phases, air and sea navigation, satellite deployment and relocation, solar and lunar eclipses, etc., are all based on a non-moving earth (HERE). All sorts of arcane math symbols calling themselves heliocentric may be used but when these "fumididdles" (as one physicist called them) or "pseudomathematical decorations" (as Andreski called them) are set aside, the math is geocentric. Given the explanations in the seven part series on the Kabbala (begin HERE) and the seven part series on "The Size and Structure of the Universe According to the Bible and Non-Theoretical Science" (begin HERE), the Model of Apollonius is demonstrably both more Scriptural and more scientifically satisfying than the modified Brahe Model (HERE). (Physicist Dr. Neville T. Jones in Scotland has a marvelous CD with moving graphics of the Apollonian Model which you can read about and order by going to the May 2004 Bulletin (HERE).)

Thus, in spite of a world persuaded otherwise, Biblical cosmology stands just as impregnable in the 21st century as it did in 1600 AD.</B> The Apollonian Model particularly shows the Earth at the center of the universe with a band of stars all around. Inside the misnamed "solar" system all the planets and the sun and the moon and the stars orbit the Earth, (The Earth is not a planet...which word means "wanderer" and--like "solar" system and capitalizing the planet's names and using the small "e" for Earth--are all just clever little indoctrination tools).

In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an "axis" every 24 hours...at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun...or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy...or its retreat from an alleged "Big Bang" at over 670,000,000 MPH! ).

There is plenty more - please look at this site and tell me you will admit to being wrong and the earth is standing still!

And then tell us why creationism and the beliefs of the YEC's are any different! ​

 

[California Tim]

And then tell us why creationism and the beliefs of the YEC's are any different! [/b][/left]

Have you read even one of the prior posts in this thread? I normally treat a post like this with the benefit of the doubt, even though it's intent is an apparent outright mockery rather than an attempt to advance a discussion. However, your question was directly answered, rebutted and answered again in my discussion with Vance just prior to your post - leading me to conclude you have ignored the conversation and have absolutely no intention of participating in this discussion for any other reason than to puff up your own spritiual ego at the expense of mine.

 

[Vance]

Yes, Maccie was using a bit of levity, but there is great value in visiting those sites to see how the modern geocentrist views your own position.

Here is a very interesting quote from one of them:

“More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue. Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.

Sincere Creationists of whatever standing need not continue to have one foot in the anti-Bible Copernican camp where the Origin and nature of the cosmos is concerned, and the other foot in the pro-Bible Creationist camp where the Origin and nature of all life forms is concerned. Indeed, the time has arrived when Creationists must quit stonewalling the geocentrism issue and begin to look at the Biblical, historical, scientific, and logical evidence which upholds the geocentrism model. (Start HERE). All who will prayerfully and carefully look at that evidence will find that it exposes not only Copernicanism, but also the entire modern Big Bang-based cosmological paradigm! That paradigm-- whether realized or not--is the present day big gun in the spiritual warfare attempting to destroy Bible credibility and all that rests upon that credibility.”

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

And here are even Luther and Calvin on this subject:

· "Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

· "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

- Martin Luther

And here is a modern Geocentrist:

"God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."

- Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "why Geocentricity?" -- an article that was in press and due to appear in the Baptist Bulletin, circa Sept. 1985.

The point is that they view their geocentric interpretation as solidly as you do your YEC viewpoint.

 

[California Tim]

The point is that they view their geocentric interpretation as solidly as you do your YEC viewpoint.

As did many sincere Christians feel Hitler was the anti-Christ and WW2 was Armeggedon. It did not make them less Christian, nor did it upset my faith that such people could err on the subject. As for the rest of the geocentrist argument I am going to pull the rare use of this out for myself - PRATTS one and all. You may continue to disagree, but I've stated my case already and see no profit in repeating myself needlessly. Furthermore, the links provided lead to unregulated unaccountable web authors who have not even apparently given us a hint who wrote each article nor given a scholastic credentials to refer to. The sites are poorly laid out, and if that's the best we can come up with to refute other more tangible arguments, then I have no worries. As it relates to the creation account geocentrism is a non-issue.

Eventually when you exhaust all your relativistic arguments and subjective comparisons, we will be able to return to the core subject and do some simple research on what the Bible does or does not teach about the Creation account. And, as I've stated numerous times before, I can assure you, no matter what "x" number of Christians said or didn't say, the proper interpretation of any given passage of scripture remains unfazed.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I agree that we have covered the subject fully, and I am VERY willing to let the record stand for itself: the fiasco of geocentrism should serve as an example of interpretive hubris and shows very clearly that scientific discoveries can, and should, help us properly interpret Scripture.

The fact that geocentrists were and are incorrect does not PROVE that YEC'ism is not correct in itself, but it does show that the way YEC's arrive at their positions and their bases for maintaining that position are faulty and dangerous, since they are the same manners (over-literalism) and bases (refusal to allow God's Creation to inform His Scripture).

But you have said nothing at all about my point in the OP about "faith presumptions". My point there was that, contrary to what you and other YEC's have said, TE's DO, indeed, have such presumption which trump any contrary statements by scientists, whether secular or Christian. Thus, we do not in the least allow science to subjugate Scripture, since if it violates a "faith presumption" it is rejected outright. I think YEC's fail to see this and just assume that we take whatever scientists say and make our reading of Scripture fit that.

 

[Vance]

This thread got sidetracked into the geocentrism discussion, but I have not had any thoughts on the OP itself.