Flat Earth, Geocentism, and Evolution

[herev]

The big question is, why did the church move easily from a flat-earth to a spherical earth view, but resist moving from a geo-centric to a helio-centric view?

I would suggest it is because the church fathers of the 2nd century were not bound to a literal interpretation of scripture as the religious leaders of the 16th century were.

amen and amen and amen--I think this is the real point of the TE argument in the thread. Well said, Amen

did I say:

 

[herev]

[sign]mod hat on[/sign]alright, here's a suggestion, please:
Everyone take a few hours off. Some of the posts are getting more heated. No one has crossed the line yet (that I've seen), but some of us are dangerously close. Can we please have a thread where we treat each other as fellow Christians?[sign]mod hat off[/sign]

 

[Vance]

You have said, see the church did this and was wrong in the literally reading so therefore you creationists are also wrong in your literal reading.

No, not "so you are also wrong", as if it is proof that you are equally wrong, but "we must learn the lesson from those past mistakes, and it looks like the modern YEC's are making the same mistake."

So you have proof as well that Paul believe in geocentrism? Or is your proof everyone else did so Paul did to. That is not impressive logic.

Why is it not good logic? You have a group, and you know that everyone in that group believes A. Is it a logical deduction that any single member of that group believes A?

Are you looking for Biblical teachings to change with science everytime science finds out it is wrong and changes its beliefs?

No, that is silly. But when the evidence for a theory which happens to conflict with your particular interpretation becomes overwhelming, you might want to consider for a second whether it may be that your interpretation is wrong. This requires an objective review of the evidence compared against the possibility of an incorrect interpretation. If, after that, you conclude that no, the interpretation must be correct and the evidence not sufficient to cause a change, then fine. But even then, it would be dangerous to go out and preach that your interpretation MUST be correct and that Scripture is wholly inconsistent with that scientific theory. This is placing way too much confidence on your own ability to evaluate the evidence on the one hand, and interpret Scripture on the other.

For me, of course, it was different, since I already interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally before I even reviewed the evidence for evolution and an old earth.

The Bible speaks God created man. Evolution speaks man evolved. Direct contradiction. You smooth this out by saying Genesis isn't literal it is allegorical. And in your case you say that poetry can only give truth not speak truly. Where is your proof that if Genesis is poetry that it isn't speaking of true events in a poetic form? Maybe you should look into poetry that actually speaks of true events.

Oh, poetry can speak literal truth, that is not a problem in the least. But it need not be speaking literal truth in order to be speaking truth. In the case of Genesis 1 and 2, we have language that reads very much like allegory, framework structures and typology, which are almost always used to convey its message non-literally.

So you then you can back up your assertion that EVERYONE believed geocentrism? You are a historian, you should be well aware of the findings in Egypt and Babylon about the charting of the nine planets and their rotations.

Sure, there were the odd scientists here and there who posited various other possibilities, but they never became common belief. In Egypt, the belief was that the sun traveled underground, though a guantlet of darkness before arising again in the east each day. In Greece, the belief was that there was a chariot which pulled the sun through the sky. These type of viewpoints were common around the world. There was a Greek scientist who did posit the idea that it may be the earth that moved around the sun, but it just didn't catch on. BTW, in Egypt and Babylon, they did not chart the nine planets, since they did not know of all nine planets, and IIRC many of these early chartings were of the planets paths in relation to the earth, not in orbit around the sun. But, again, there were a lot of other speculations, some of which came closer to the truth than others, but the belief among the entire populous was geocentric.

I am speaking out against you aren't I?

Exactly my point. Are you tearing the body of Christ down? Are the YEC ministries tearing down the Church? Was Paul tearing down the Body of Christ by challenging the Jerusalem Church on the issue of circumscision?

You seem to confuse yourself with God. God saves souls, not you.

So, we should not be working to spread the Gospel? We should just sit back and let God do it all? What happened to "Go unto all the earth . . ."? We DO have a responsibility to personally study to show ourselves approved regarding Scripture and science, and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to help in bringing souls into the Kingdom. If I see something I can do that will further that cause, I think I should do it. Don't you?

If ANYONE was saying they are going to rewrite the Bible a large red flashing light would go off. There is no need to rewrite the Bible, unless you are trying to lead people astray. And you notice where this so called prophet is lead people? To believe that death existed before the fall, that man evolved and was not created, that there were other primative beings around before Adam and Eve. Sound alot like what you believe in to me.

Again, if a YEC was teaching YEC'ism and ALSO that the Bible needed to be rewritten to clarify these points, would that have ANY impact on the validity of YEC teaching? Of course not, a wacko is a wacko. The fact that a wacko teaches some things similar to one position or another is entirely irrelevant. I am amazed that you would think this was a valid point.

 

[GodSaves]

No, not "so you are also wrong", as if it is proof that you are equally wrong, but "we must learn the lesson from those past mistakes, and it looks like the modern YEC's are making the same mistake."

Some of us have learned our lesson, hence we don't accept the evolutionary theory which has no real support for man evolving.

Why is it not good logic? You have a group, and you know that everyone in that group believes A. Is it a logical deduction that any single member of that group believes A?

So you think that if everyone did so must have Paul to be good logic. Remember that next time your child tells you, but daddy everyone was doing it so I had to. I think you are stepping out here and assuming you know the mind of Paul on this subject.

No, that is silly. But when the evidence for a theory which happens to conflict with your particular interpretation becomes overwhelming, you might want to consider for a second whether it may be that your interpretation is wrong. This requires an objective review of the evidence compared against the possibility of an incorrect interpretation. If, after that, you conclude that no, the interpretation must be correct and the evidence not sufficient to cause a change, then fine. But even then, it would be dangerous to go out and preach that your interpretation MUST be correct and that Scripture is wholly inconsistent with that scientific theory. This is placing way too much confidence on your own ability to evaluate the evidence on the one hand, and interpret Scripture on the other.

Well what about the research that has been done on the soul. Science recently has felt that it is now capable of doing research in the area. Francis Crick before he died did numerous studies on the subject. He concluded that we don't have a soul really it is just part of imagination in the mind. He has really good data as well to back it up, with numerous scientists behind him. He also has done studies on free will. He also concluded that aliens are the ones who created mankind because there is no way we could have evolved. This is Francis Crick the one who co-discovered DNA that says no amount of time is enough time for man to evolve.

For me, of course, it was different, since I already interpreted Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally before I even reviewed the evidence for evolution and an old earth.

Oh, poetry can speak literal truth, that is not a problem in the least. But it need not be speaking literal truth in order to be speaking truth. In the case of Genesis 1 and 2, we have language that reads very much like allegory, framework structures and typology, which are almost always used to convey its message non-literally.

Do you study ancient Hebrew? Can you speak it fluently? There are experts who have compared the verbs used in Genesis with that of Psalms and have found there to be a great difference. They compared the verbs with parts of the Bible that are narrative and historical. They concluded that Genesis was meant to be read as a narrative historical account.

Sure, there were the odd scientists here and there who posited various other possibilities, but they never became common belief. In Egypt, the belief was that the sun traveled underground, though a guantlet of darkness before arising again in the east each day. In Greece, the belief was that there was a chariot which pulled the sun through the sky. These type of viewpoints were common around the world. There was a Greek scientist who did posit the idea that it may be the earth that moved around the sun, but it just didn't catch on. BTW, in Egypt and Babylon, they did not chart the nine planets, since they did not know of all nine planets, and IIRC many of these early chartings were of the planets paths in relation to the earth, not in orbit around the sun. But, again, there were a lot of other speculations, some of which came closer to the truth than others, but the belief among the entire populous was geocentric.

I don't think you have read about the findings in Babylon and Egypt by what you have said here. The findings were found in Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Sippar, and every other important city in Babylon.

Exactly my point. Are you tearing the body of Christ down? Are the YEC ministries tearing down the Church? Was Paul tearing down the Body of Christ by challenging the Jerusalem Church on the issue of circumscision?

Are you really going to equate circumcision with the sin, death and the fall of man? Somehow I think you think of yourself as a modern day Paul.

So, we should not be working to spread the Gospel? We should just sit back and let God do it all? What happened to "Go unto all the earth . . ."? We DO have a responsibility to personally study to show ourselves approved regarding Scripture and science, and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to help in bringing souls into the Kingdom. If I see something I can do that will further that cause, I think I should do it. Don't you?

Vance you don't save souls period. YOu can plant seeds but saving souls God does. You cannot determine who gets saved and who doesn't. You cannot assume that you have God's power to be able to save. It is not by your blood or work we are saved it is by Christ's and Christ's alone.

We do have the command to preach, but it is not up to us who receives the Gospel and who does not. Our job is to tell all people, not water down scripture so that we somehow think we are doing the saving.

I will not change or alter or read differently scripture just so I can say I have saved someone. I am not prideful enough to think that it is my work that saves souls. I can spread the word of what Christ did but I cannot change the heart of man. That is where God comes in. Vance you really have to understand it is not by our power that anything is accomplished. It is through God and God alone. We have no power. We can only tell what God has done. You do no service by changing it altering it or telling people they can read it anyway they like it. God gave His message in the Bible and I would presume that He would not be tolerate of people changing it so that they can say they are saving more souls. When you come and realize it is not you, it is God, then maybe you will stop trying to change any teaching that is hard for others so that you can save people.

As my screen name says, God Saves, not you nor I.

Again, if a YEC was teaching YEC'ism and ALSO that the Bible needed to be rewritten to clarify these points, would that have ANY impact on the validity of YEC teaching? Of course not, a wacko is a wacko. The fact that a wacko teaches some things similar to one position or another is entirely irrelevant. I am amazed that you would think this was a valid point.

The 'wacko' is teaching exactly what you are trying to teach. I see the relevance here, you choose not to. Satan does not cast out satan, Christ said that. Satan doesn't work against Satan, so he would not preach God's Word but would rather manipulate it. Look at what Christ said when they accused Him of being satan when He cast out demons.

 

[Vance]

Some of us have learned our lesson, hence we don't accept the evolutionary theory which has no real support for man evolving.

Then let's talk about that support, if you like. What do you believe is wrong, scientifically, with the theory of evolution?

So you think that if everyone did so must have Paul to be good logic. Remember that next time your child tells you, but daddy everyone was doing it so I had to. I think you are stepping out here and assuming you know the mind of Paul on this subject.

This is just ridiculous. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that discussing these matters with you is a complete waste of time. If you can not see the difference between these two scenarios, then I can not help you.

Well what about the research that has been done on the soul. Science recently has felt that it is now capable of doing research in the area. Francis Crick before he died did numerous studies on the subject. He concluded that we don't have a soul really it is just part of imagination in the mind. He has really good data as well to back it up, with numerous scientists behind him. He also has done studies on free will. He also concluded that aliens are the ones who created mankind because there is no way we could have evolved. This is Francis Crick the one who co-discovered DNA that says no amount of time is enough time for man to evolve.

"science" feels this way, or "some scientists" feel this way? When there is a general consensus in the scientific community, then you review the evidence and compare it to your understanding of Scripture and the likelihood of your interpretation being incorrect or the scientific community being incorrect. In some cases it will be a slam dunk for your existing interpretation of Scripture (as in your example, if this ever came to be the concensus in the scientific community), or a slam dunk for the scientific proposition (as with an old earth). Others will be less conclusive either way. That is when you must be careful not to preach you interpretation dogmatically, just as the scientist should not preach his conclusion dogmatically when there is reasonable doubt.

Do you study ancient Hebrew? Can you speak it fluently? There are experts who have compared the verbs used in Genesis with that of Psalms and have found there to be a great difference. They compared the verbs with parts of the Bible that are narrative and historical. They concluded that Genesis was meant to be read as a narrative historical account.

Yes, and other experts in the field have concluded just the opposite. So, you need to do your own research and come to your own conclusion. Agreed.

I don't think you have read about the findings in Babylon and Egypt by what you have said here. The findings were found in Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Sippar, and every other important city in Babylon.

Then enlighten us. No, I have not done research on this area in a long time, but I do know that, up to the time of Galileo, only a few scientific minds, here and there, considered a non-geocentric solar system. But, if you have evidence that the majority of the people had adopted a heliocentric solar system before Galileo, feel free to present that information. If you look into, especially from a source OTHER than AiG, I think you will conclude that the vast majority of the people (really, all but a handful of independent thinkers spotted here and there), just accepted the natural idea that the earth was fixed, and the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Look into it and let us know if this is NOT the case.

Are you really going to equate circumcision with the sin, death and the fall of man? Somehow I think you think of yourself as a modern day Paul.

No, I am equating the stumbling block of circumcision with the stumbling block of the "either/or" teaching of young earth creationism. Paul felt that the issue of circumcision warranted taking time out from his mission to come to Rome and attempt to remove this stumbling block. And, no, I do not think of myself as a modern day Paul. Statements like this make it clear where you are coming from. I believe Paul should be an example to us, and we should strive to be like him.

Vance you don't save souls period. YOu can plant seeds but saving souls God does. You cannot determine who gets saved and who doesn't. You cannot assume that you have God's power to be able to save. It is not by your blood or work we are saved it is by Christ's and Christ's alone.

Right. Where have I said anything different than that. We plant the seed. But, just as with Paul, planting the seed also involves pulling out the weeds around the seed.

We do have the command to preach, but it is not up to us who receives the Gospel and who does not. Our job is to tell all people, not water down scripture so that we somehow think we are doing the saving.

Right, we agree that we should no water down the Scripture. Good that we agree on this point.

I will not change or alter or read differently scripture just so I can say I have saved someone. I am not prideful enough to think that it is my work that saves souls. I can spread the word of what Christ did but I cannot change the heart of man. That is where God comes in.

Agreed again! I would NEVER advocate changing your view of Scripture in order to save someone.

Vance you really have to understand it is not by our power that anything is accomplished. It is through God and God alone. We have no power. We can only tell what God has done. You do no service by changing it altering it or telling people they can read it anyway they like it. God gave His message in the Bible and I would presume that He would not be tolerate of people changing it so that they can say they are saving more souls.

Agreed again!! Three times in a row! I am not sure what your problem is since we agree on all these points.

When you come and realize it is not you, it is God, then maybe you will stop trying to change any teaching that is hard for others so that you can save people.

But you are ignoring everything I have ever said on these forums, since it completely contradicts how you just characterized my approach. I am not advocating that anyone change their belief, only the presentation of their belief when it can be a stumbling block, and it is not a salvation issue. It is when you present the YEC belief that if evolution is true, then Scripture is not true, that it becomes a stumbling block. To continue to preach this aspect of YEC'ism when the danger is proven and souls have been lost as a result of such teaching, involves a great deal of pride in your own ability to properly interpret Scripture.

The 'wacko' is teaching exactly what you are trying to teach. I see the relevance here, you choose not to. Satan does not cast out satan, Christ said that. Satan doesn't work against Satan, so he would not preach God's Word but would rather manipulate it. Look at what Christ said when they accused Him of being satan when He cast out demons.

No, he is not teaching what I am trying to teach, since he is talking about adding new Scriptures. That is his error, and shows that he is not within the will of God. It is not his beliefs that are similar to TE teaching that is in error. He also believes that God is God. I presume he believes that Jesus is the son of God. Are those beliefs also wrong because they are held by someone who is attempting to distort God's Word.

Again, answer this hypothetical. If there was a person claiming to be a new prophet of God. He said a white light had told him that YEC'ism was God's Holy truth and that, because so many people were confused over this, God was clearing the matter up by adding in new Scripture to make it plain. Now, would that mean that YEC'ism was incorrect because it was believed by a false prophet?

 

[GodSaves]

Then let's talk about that support, if you like. What do you believe is wrong, scientifically, with the theory of evolution?

God created man says God's Word. Man evolved so says science. Hence my problem with this part of evolution.

This is just ridiculous. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that discussing these matters with you is a complete waste of time. If you can not see the difference between these two scenarios, then I can not help you.

I don't need your help, Vance.

"science" feels this way, or "some scientists" feel this way? When there is a general consensus in the scientific community, then you review the evidence and compare it to your understanding of Scripture and the likelihood of your interpretation being incorrect or the scientific community being incorrect. In some cases it will be a slam dunk for your existing interpretation of Scripture (as in your example, if this ever came to be the concensus in the scientific community), or a slam dunk for the scientific proposition (as with an old earth). Others will be less conclusive either way. That is when you must be careful not to preach you interpretation dogmatically, just as the scientist should not preach his conclusion dogmatically when there is reasonable doubt.

You preach dogmatically that evolution is compatible with scripture. What happens when evolution changes? What happens if Crick's assertions are accepted and the scientific community accepts that aliens created us? What then about those people you dogmatically tried to save by saying evolution and God's Word are compatible? Will it still be compatible to say God created and aliens created? WIll it be compatible with God's Word to say the soul really doesn't exist? Will be it compatible with God's Word to say free will isn't really free will as Crick has stated? Is it compatible with God's Word to say we weren't created special because we evolved just like everything else?

Yes, and other experts in the field have concluded just the opposite. So, you need to do your own research and come to your own conclusion. Agreed.

As far as I have seen these experts have not done as extensive research as one of the ones I recently read by Boyd.

Then enlighten us. No, I have not done research on this area in a long time, but I do know that, up to the time of Galileo, only a few scientific minds, here and there, considered a non-geocentric solar system. But, if you have evidence that the majority of the people had adopted a heliocentric solar system before Galileo, feel free to present that information. If you look into, especially from a source OTHER than AiG, I think you will conclude that the vast majority of the people (really, all but a handful of independent thinkers spotted here and there), just accepted the natural idea that the earth was fixed, and the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Look into it and let us know if this is NOT the case.

In 'Halley's Bible Handbook' you will find extensive archaeological reviews that show that Egyptians and Babylonians have charted all the nine planets and studied their rotations. This is around the time of Moses through around Solomon. This clarifies the position held by the writers who talked about the position and movement of the sun in the Bible. It is science that changes peoples interpretation of everything. Geocentrism, flat earth, and now evolution. All are wrong, evolution has not had enough time to show that it is wrong when it concludes that man evolved.

No, I am equating the stumbling block of circumcision with the stumbling block of the "either/or" teaching of young earth creationism. Paul felt that the issue of circumcision warranted taking time out from his mission to come to Rome and attempt to remove this stumbling block. And, no, I do not think of myself as a modern day Paul. Statements like this make it clear where you are coming from. I believe Paul should be an example to us, and we should strive to be like him.

I suggest you stop focusing on a young earth part because we are not discussing how old/young the earth is. I don't care how old it is, that is irrelevant to me. It is your idea that man evolved and was not created as a man by God that I find to be wrong. I find it to be wrong not because I created this belief, but because the Bible says this to be true.

In no way is circumcision to be equate with death before the fall and man evolving rather then being created. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between man and God. When Christ came He created a new covenant and the old became the old. Read Romans 2:25-3 so that you may understand.

Death before the fall has real implications, unlike circumcision. Death before the fall considers the body of man that God created to not be perfect. When Christ comes He will give us perfect bodies like what we had before sin. Paul talked about this as well as Jesus and John. If you want to understand what our bodies were like then you look at what are bodies will be like. Both were and are to be without sin.

You need to look into the scripture to see how God acts, this will tell you how He created. God speaks and it has happened is reason to believe that when God spoke creation into being that it happened immediately.

You need to understand that we don't interpret scripture. We let the Holy Spirit guide us to allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

Right. Where have I said anything different than that. We plant the seed. But, just as with Paul, planting the seed also involves pulling out the weeds around the seed.


Right, we agree that we should no water down the Scripture. Good that we agree on this point.


Agreed again! I would NEVER advocate changing your view of Scripture in order to save someone.



Agreed again!! Three times in a row! I am not sure what your problem is since we agree on all these points.

Great, then you realize nothing you can do will save anyone. You realize then you have no authority or power in saving anyone. You realize that all that can be done is talk about what Christ did for us. You also realize you can do nothing, that it is God and God alone that does the work. We can only preach His Word.

But you are ignoring everything I have ever said on these forums, since it completely contradicts how you just characterized my approach. I am not advocating that anyone change their belief, only the presentation of their belief when it can be a stumbling block, and it is not a salvation issue. It is when you present the YEC belief that if evolution is true, then Scripture is not true, that it becomes a stumbling block. To continue to preach this aspect of YEC'ism when the danger is proven and souls have been lost as a result of such teaching, involves a great deal of pride in your own ability to properly interpret Scripture.

I haven't ignored everything you have said. I may have misunderstood it but I have not ignored it. You don't come out and say we should change but you say we are the problem. You have said that our belief and stating that it is our belief is the reason why people aren't being saved. Evolution as far as man evolved is contradictory to the Bible. There is no way around it, unless you decide to take a narrative historical story and change it by saying it is an allegorically written poetry that has no factual truth.

I don't have an interpretation even though you and others insist that I do have one. I try to let the Holy Spirit lead and show me how the Bible interpretates itself. If you did the same then you would allow the parts of the Bible that describe how God works to interpret how He created. The Bible says when God speaks it has already happened. It doesn't say when God speaks it happens tomorrow, next month, next year, or a billion years later. It says when He speaks it is already done. Take notice that is says already done when spoken. Then look at Genesis and see that it is written that God is speaking and then look at what happens - as written in the Bible - when God speaks. This is allowing the Bible to interpret itself. You and others obviously feel this is wrong. You and others think that you must put your mind in the mind of the author rather then allowing the Bible to interpret itself. This is the wrong approach.

No, he is not teaching what I am trying to teach, since he is talking about adding new Scriptures. That is his error, and shows that he is not within the will of God. It is not his beliefs that are similar to TE teaching that is in error. He also believes that God is God. I presume he believes that Jesus is the son of God. Are those beliefs also wrong because they are held by someone who is attempting to distort God's Word.

He is teaching exactly what you are teaching. If you answer yes to these questions then you both teach the same thing, he is just going to write about it and say it is inspired.

Do you believe man evolved?
Do you believe that there were primative men before Adam and Eve?
Do you believe physical death existed before the fall of man?

I assume from everything you have said you would answer yes to all of those. THis is what this so called prophet is teaching and writing about. He is writing a book, you are writing on a forum. Not much difference.

Again, answer this hypothetical. If there was a person claiming to be a new prophet of God. He said a white light had told him that YEC'ism was God's Holy truth and that, because so many people were confused over this, God was clearing the matter up by adding in new Scripture to make it plain. Now, would that mean that YEC'ism was incorrect because it was believed by a false prophet?

Maybe you don't understand that Satan doesn't work against Satan. There is no need to rewrite or add to the Bible. In fact the Bible speaks against doing this. No matter if they claimed to be a YEC/TE/OEC/GAP and said they are going to rewrite or add to the Bible they are wrong. The fact is that one who holds your belief is going to rewrite the Bible. This says something about your belief and how popular it is with a false prophet. I didn't create this false prophet it is a fact and his belief is yours.

 

[GodSaves]

edit: double post

 

[Vance]

You preach dogmatically that evolution is compatible with scripture. What happens when evolution changes? What happens if Crick's assertions are accepted and the scientific community accepts that aliens created us? What then about those people you dogmatically tried to save by saying evolution and God's Word are compatible? Will it still be compatible to say God created and aliens created? WIll it be compatible with God's Word to say the soul really doesn't exist? Will be it compatible with God's Word to say free will isn't really free will as Crick has stated? Is it compatible with God's Word to say we weren't created special because we evolved just like everything else?

The Slippery Slope again. This really is your favorite fallacy.
1. There is no problem if evolution changes. I am not teaching that evolution MUST be true, only that nothing in Scripture is incompatible with it. If evolution is not accurate, and there is some other explanation for the development of the species over billions of years, there is still no problem.

2. For each presentation by science, we must simply go through the analysis I have described above. When it is NOT compatible, it is NOT compatible. Simple as that.

3. To say that Man evolved does not imply in the least that we are just like any other creature or that there was not something special about Man according to God's perfect plan. This is your second favorite fallacy, the Straw Man.

In 'Halley's Bible Handbook' you will find extensive archaeological reviews that show that Egyptians and Babylonians have charted all the nine planets and studied their rotations. This is around the time of Moses through around Solomon. This clarifies the position held by the writers who talked about the position and movement of the sun in the Bible. It is science that changes peoples interpretation of everything. Geocentrism, flat earth, and now evolution. All are wrong, evolution has not had enough time to show that it is wrong when it concludes that man evolved.

I don't have Halley's, so maybe you can tell us whether those planet rotation charts involve their route around the earth, or whether they are presenting the idea that the planets revolve around the sun. If the latter, they were still geocentrists.

I suggest you stop focusing on a young earth part because we are not discussing how old/young the earth is. I don't care how old it is, that is irrelevant to me. It is your idea that man evolved and was not created as a man by God that I find to be wrong. I find it to be wrong not because I created this belief, but because the Bible says this to be true.

First, you are begging the question (a third fallacy in one post) that the Bible says this, since this is the question on the table.

Second, what exactly is your belief about the age of the earth? Most of your fellow Creationists are YOUNG earth Creationists, and have lots of arguments and Scriptural support to back them up. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this point.

It is very important, since I believe that the YEC teaching that an old earth is contrary to Scripture is even more damaging than the teaching that evolution is contrary to Scripture. In short, I think Hugh Ross does a LOT less damage than Dr. Dino or AiG.

In no way is circumcision to be equate with death before the fall and man evolving rather then being created. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between man and God. When Christ came He created a new covenant and the old became the old. Read Romans 2:25-3 so that you may understand.

I have, many times. You seem to be missing the point. The circumcision issue was a stumbling block, you will agree with that, I assume. Paul realized that this issue, even if minor to you, was making his job of presenting the Gospel to Gentiles more difficult. Since he believed that you need not be circumcised, and he convinced the James faction that it was not a salvation issue (although they continued to believe that they should be circumcised), the James faction agreed to back off and not require circumcision. They did not change their belief, but they did agree that they should not say that it was an "either/or" issue.

Death before the fall has real implications, unlike circumcision. Death before the fall considers the body of man that God created to not be perfect. When Christ comes He will give us perfect bodies like what we had before sin. Paul talked about this as well as Jesus and John. If you want to understand what our bodies were like then you look at what are bodies will be like. Both were and are to be without sin.

We have discussed this matter in full elsewhere and there is no need to rehash it all here. You equate physical death with sin, I do not. You think that our bodies had to have been created perfectly, I do not. You equate our new bodies with our bodies before the Fall, I do not. Refer to our previous discussion on all these points.

You need to look into the scripture to see how God acts, this will tell you how He created. God speaks and it has happened is reason to believe that when God spoke creation into being that it happened immediately.

No, this is bad logic. The fact that God did something one way in one place does not mean that He did it the same way elsewhere. God never changes, but He has performed His works in many different ways. Let me ask you. If it all happened instaneously at each speaking, and the days are six literal 24 hour days, how can you not believe in a young earth? What part of the standard Young Earth Creation model, based on literalism, are you willing to say is not important in order to accomodate an older earth?

You need to understand that we don't interpret scripture. We let the Holy Spirit guide us to allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

Really? You believe that there is no interpretation involved? No hermeunetics? You believe every difference of opinion regarding what the Bible teaches is based on someone not being properly led by the Spirit? When two Bible-believing and Spirit-filled people sit down and pray to have the Spirit guide them in the proper understanding of the text, but then still come to different conclusion, it is because one is properly led while the other isn't?

Great, then you realize nothing you can do will save anyone. You realize then you have no authority or power in saving anyone. You realize that all that can be done is talk about what Christ did for us. You also realize you can do nothing, that it is God and God alone that does the work. We can only preach His Word.

Of course, we do not do the saving. This is not a difficult concept I am discussing. We plant the seed, we weed the garden, we water the seed as needed, God makes it grow. We have a definite role to play in the process, and we have an obligation to perform that role with all our heart.

I haven't ignored everything you have said. I may have misunderstood it but I have not ignored it. You don't come out and say we should change but you say we are the problem. You have said that our belief and stating that it is our belief is the reason why people aren't being saved. Evolution as far as man evolved is contradictory to the Bible. There is no way around it, unless you decide to take a narrative historical story and change it by saying it is an allegorically written poetry that has no factual truth.

No, I would never take a narrative historical story and change it to anything. I just take it as it is.

I don't have an interpretation even though you and others insist that I do have one. I try to let the Holy Spirit lead and show me how the Bible interpretates itself. If you did the same then you would allow the parts of the Bible that describe how God works to interpret how He created. The Bible says when God speaks it has already happened. It doesn't say when God speaks it happens tomorrow, next month, next year, or a billion years later. It says when He speaks it is already done. Take notice that is says already done when spoken. Then look at Genesis and see that it is written that God is speaking and then look at what happens - as written in the Bible - when God speaks. This is allowing the Bible to interpret itself. You and others obviously feel this is wrong. You and others think that you must put your mind in the mind of the author rather then allowing the Bible to interpret itself. This is the wrong approach.

Are you saying that the creation of the universe had to be performed the same way as any other action of God. That the way God did one thing is how He MUST have done EVERYTHING? Again, you need to consider your statements that the earth might be old in light of what you are saying here.

He is teaching exactly what you are teaching. If you answer yes to these questions then you both teach the same thing, he is just going to write about it and say it is inspired.

This is truly the most ridiculous argument you have come up with yet.

Do you believe man evolved?
Do you believe that there were primative men before Adam and Eve?
Do you believe physical death existed before the fall of man?

I assume from everything you have said you would answer yes to all of those. THis is what this so called prophet is teaching and writing about. He is writing a book, you are writing on a forum. Not much difference.

Not much difference other than he is claiming to have received a direct vision from God that a new Scripture needs to be written! Really, this is just an awful argument.

Maybe you don't understand that Satan doesn't work against Satan. There is no need to rewrite or add to the Bible. In fact the Bible speaks against doing this. No matter if they claimed to be a YEC/TE/OEC/GAP and said they are going to rewrite or add to the Bible they are wrong. The fact is that one who holds your belief is going to rewrite the Bible. This says something about your belief and how popular it is with a false prophet. I didn't create this false prophet it is a fact and his belief is yours.

No, this says nothing about the TE beliefs. The fact that a false prophet holds some coinciding beliefs does not make those coinciding beliefs invalid. Again, how many coinciding beliefs does he hold with you? Does he believe there is one God, that Jesus is God's Son, that Jesus is the savior, and a dozen other beliefs he holds in common with you? Does the fact that a false prophet believes these things invalidate them? Of course not.

But, if my hypothetical happened, you would say that this did not invalidate YEC teaching. So, you agree that the fact that a false prophet believed the same as you would not invalidate your beliefs.

What if Jim Jones was a Young Earth Creationist, would that mean that YEC'ism is incorrect?

No, this argument is really the worst any YEC has ever made on these forums.

 

[GodSaves]

The Slippery Slope again. This really is your favorite fallacy.
1. There is no problem if evolution changes. I am not teaching that evolution MUST be true, only that nothing in Scripture is incompatible with it. If evolution is not accurate, and there is some other explanation for the development of the species over billions of years, there is still no problem.

2. For each presentation by science, we must simply go through the analysis I have described above. When it is NOT compatible, it is NOT compatible. Simple as that.

3. To say that Man evolved does not imply in the least that we are just like any other creature or that there was not something special about Man according to God's perfect plan. This is your second favorite fallacy, the Straw Man.

So you see no problem preaching God created by evolution and when evolution changes saying no God didn't create like I said He did but rather this way now. Inconsistent teaching doesn't seem to bother you at all.

First, you are begging the question (a third fallacy in one post) that the Bible says this, since this is the question on the table.

Now we get to the core. You suggest here that just because the Bible says so we cannot just believe it to be true. How do you believe anything about Christ? My evidence that God created is the Bible which came from God. I don't ask God where He gets His Authority to state such a thing.

Second, what exactly is your belief about the age of the earth? Most of your fellow Creationists are YOUNG earth Creationists, and have lots of arguments and Scriptural support to back them up. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this point.

It is very important, since I believe that the YEC teaching that an old earth is contrary to Scripture is even more damaging than the teaching that evolution is contrary to Scripture. In short, I think Hugh Ross does a LOT less damage than Dr. Dino or AiG.

Is my belief of the age so relevant? I believe it was a 24 hour day when the Bible says evening then morning. What I think is possible is the Gap Theory, and also there can be gaps in the geneologies. I believe the people in the geneologies are historical, actual living breathing people but it could have been that not all people were included. So the age of the earth is irrelevant. The creation is six days, but how long this earth has been around is irrelevant.

I have, many times. You seem to be missing the point. The circumcision issue was a stumbling block, you will agree with that, I assume. Paul realized that this issue, even if minor to you, was making his job of presenting the Gospel to Gentiles more difficult. Since he believed that you need not be circumcised, and he convinced the James faction that it was not a salvation issue (although they continued to believe that they should be circumcised), the James faction agreed to back off and not require circumcision. They did not change their belief, but they did agree that they should not say that it was an "either/or" issue.


We have discussed this matter in full elsewhere and there is no need to rehash it all here. You equate physical death with sin, I do not. You think that our bodies had to have been created perfectly, I do not. You equate our new bodies with our bodies before the Fall, I do not. Refer to our previous discussion on all these points.

You don't seem to understand - whether you don't want to or just ignorant - that there is a difference between death before the fall and circumcision. The difference is in how the Bible talks about the two. No where does Paul speak that we are to remove the stumbling block God creating man or anything in Genesis 1-3.

WHo are you to think that you have the authority to say you are ordained by God to say Genesis 1-3 is not really true although we can learn from it? Who are you to have this authority to take what you want from the Bible?

Creationists don't take what we want from the Bible. We let the Bible interpret the Bible. You don't, you rely on yourself do that.

No, this is bad logic. The fact that God did something one way in one place does not mean that He did it the same way elsewhere. God never changes, but He has performed His works in many different ways. Let me ask you. If it all happened instaneously at each speaking, and the days are six literal 24 hour days, how can you not believe in a young earth? What part of the standard Young Earth Creation model, based on literalism, are you willing to say is not important in order to accomodate an older earth?

What does the Bible say about when God speaks?
Did God speak creation into existence?

You seem to think that an old earth relies on the fact that God didn't create in six days. Gap theory believes a six day creation and the earth is old. Look above at my answers to your questions on this.

Really? You believe that there is no interpretation involved? No hermeunetics? You believe every difference of opinion regarding what the Bible teaches is based on someone not being properly led by the Spirit? When two Bible-believing and Spirit-filled people sit down and pray to have the Spirit guide them in the proper understanding of the text, but then still come to different conclusion, it is because one is properly led while the other isn't?

You accuse me alot of not paying attention or ignoring what you say. You do the same.

The Bible is not meant for personal interpretation. Look at what the Bible says about it, Beowulf has given you scripture to back this belief. Proper interpretation is realizing that you cannot interpret the Bible. You look to the Holy Spirit to lead you to see how the Bible will interpret itself.

I wouldn't consider you a Bible believing Christian. A Christian you say you are, but you don't write on this forum as if you trust the Bible. You have argued against:

Six day creation
Man being created
A flood that covered all mountains under the entire heaven.
Adam and Eve being real people
The Bible not needing other sources to be valid
Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit
And more...

These all stem from the Bible, so I would conclude you don't trust the Bible in all area's, thus not Bible believing. You say you are a Christian and I have no choice but to trust that you are. But you have shown you don't trust the Bible in all area's.

Of course, we do not do the saving. This is not a difficult concept I am discussing. We plant the seed, we weed the garden, we water the seed as needed, God makes it grow. We have a definite role to play in the process, and we have an obligation to perform that role with all our heart.

You seem to think that you have a job to make scripture easier for people to accept, even if that means changing how we read it.

No, I would never take a narrative historical story and change it to anything. I just take it as it is.

You have demonstrated you will with Genesis.

Are you saying that the creation of the universe had to be performed the same way as any other action of God. That the way God did one thing is how He MUST have done EVERYTHING? Again, you need to consider your statements that the earth might be old in light of what you are saying here.

Where did I say that? Have I not said that the earth very well could be old?

This is truly the most ridiculous argument you have come up with yet.

Really? You both are teaching the samething. He has just taken it further then you.

Not much difference other than he is claiming to have received a direct vision from God that a new Scripture needs to be written! Really, this is just an awful argument.

So you don't see anything that makes you think here? You don't think anything of this person who claims he received a vision and is now teaching what you teach? You don't find that be something relevant?

No, this says nothing about the TE beliefs. The fact that a false prophet holds some coinciding beliefs does not make those coinciding beliefs invalid. Again, how many coinciding beliefs does he hold with you? Does he believe there is one God, that Jesus is God's Son, that Jesus is the savior, and a dozen other beliefs he holds in common with you? Does the fact that a false prophet believes these things invalidate them? Of course not.

First they aren't coinciding beliefs they are the actual beliefs you have. And these beliefs this person claims a white light told him about. He isn't rewriting the Bible to claim Jesus isn't God, he is rewriting it to claim that God didn't do the things claimed in Genesis 1-3, just like you. He is rewriting the whole Bible - per my understanding - to nullify anywhere where the Bible doesn't agree with his beliefs.

But, if my hypothetical happened, you would say that this did not invalidate YEC teaching. So, you agree that the fact that a false prophet believed the same as you would not invalidate your beliefs.

What if Jim Jones was a Young Earth Creationist, would that mean that YEC'ism is incorrect?

No, this argument is really the worst any YEC has ever made on these forums.

Vance what you don't seem to get is what I find interesting is that this person claims this white light told him the following:

Man evolved.
There were primative type of people before Adam and Eve.
Death was apart of creation before the fall.

Obviously you don't get it. If I am a waste of time to discuss with, why do you even bother posting in reply to me. You don't always have to have the last word Vance.

 

[Vance]

Fine, I will let your last post stand as the end of this discussion. I am MORE than happy to let people review both sides of this discussion and make up their own mind.

 

[gluadys]

Are you looking for Biblical teachings to change with science everytime science finds out it is wrong and changes its beliefs?

Wellllll.....hmmmmm......let me see. When science changes its tune because it found out it was wrong, the church should

a) stick with the wrong science, because it has tied its interpretation of scripture to a scientific error?


or


b) change its interpretation to agree with the correct science?

How could anyone who believes that God is truth and scripture teaches truth assert the church should opt for a) and deliberately continue to teach scientific error as truth?


So, yes. I do expect biblical teachings (or more precisely, human interpretation of biblical teachings) to change with science everytime science finds out it is wrong and changes its theories to fit the facts.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

there is a very nice essay on the topic of Galileo and geocentricism at:
http://www.eblaforum.org/library/hps/galileo1.html

this is a most excellent essay.
this link was in the discussion

http://www.eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?t=787&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
which lead to this:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/
and this is really good, several layers down are excellent lecture notes. spend some time here.

 

[mike curry]

Hello everybody. I stumbled upon this site and wanted to make a few comments. First, I think that when Luther and Calvin are discussed, in respect to their geocentric beliefs, it’s not to bash or slander them; it’s to make a simple point that, men are fallible. Even great men of God. They make mistakes regarding theology, regarding the way that the bible was intended to be read. And likewise, we make theological mistakes. Our current theologians make mistakes. Honest mistakes. Do we think that we are greater than Luther and Calvin in our understanding? Is our understanding always perfect? I have to say, that I am usually wary of any Biblical teacher who is “always right,” and, (this is the important part) has harsh words for believers who share different interpretations.

 

[Vance]

Hello everybody. I stumbled upon this site and wanted to make a few comments. First, I think that when Luther and Calvin are discussed, in respect to their geocentric beliefs, it’s not to bash or slander them; it’s to make a simple point that, men are fallible. Even great men of God. They make mistakes regarding theology, regarding the way that the bible was intended to be read. And likewise, we make theological mistakes. Our current theologians make mistakes. Honest mistakes. Do we think that we are greater than Luther and Calvin in our understanding? Is our understanding always perfect? I have to say, that I am usually wary of any Biblical teacher who is “always right,” and, (this is the important part) has harsh words for believers who share different interpretations.

Very true, and welcome to the Forums, Mike!

In addition, the references to those seminal leaders of Protestantism was given to point out that it was not just the Roman Catholic Church that believed that Heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture.