Hi Everyone!!

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry but this question doesn't make any sense. I'm asking for evidence about the origin of things we currently observe. Yes, the origin of things we currently observe includes past events, either miracles or natural, but we have related objects to look at to study what those past events could have been (ie the earth and different species). However, your questions pertain to past events of which we have nothing to observe.

If I don't have evidence for the sun standing still, how does that affect the origins issue?

Well, that was my question in the first place. What are they?

If you think about the nature of creation, then you should not ask for evidence. Because creation does not give evidence by its definition. Only evolution gives a lot of evidences. So, if you get "blinded" by science and ask for evidence to everything, then there is only one way you will go: evolution. Its evidence is so abundant that you can enjoy the evidences of evolution for the rest of your life.

For creation, you may ask for something like "sign", which implies, but does not prove. It is hard. But just like Jesus the Lord, is there any evidence of His existence? Is Christianity the evidence?

Yes and No. Right? If the Lord Jesus could not be proved to be true, then what else need to proved in the whole Bible?

 

[artybloke]

Evolution is creation. Only those blinded by bibliolatry can't see that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm still new here and origins theology is a topic that I've never really looked into. Someone I know has brought it up with me personally but I'm completely in the dark on this matter because it simply hasn't mattered to me. I've been a Christian since I was a young child and all that's mattered is my daily walk with Jesus.

Although origins still isn't an issue for me at all, my curiosity has been invoked. I read the full spectrum of beliefs thread, but that doesn't tell me much about what's behind them. Is anyone willing to explain THEIR view to me and explain what theology and science is behind them?

I am NOT interested in hearing why anyone else is wrong. I just wanna know what makes you think that your view is correct both theologically and scientifically.

It would be great if people posting in this thread were just expressing their own views and not ripping into each other. I'm sure there are enough other threads for that.

I'll probably follow up with questions.

Thanks!!!

I would say the center of my perspective on this topic begins with the conviction that the whole of history and the cosmos is Christocentric. Christ is the center of all history and of the whole universe. He is the Logos, the Word, the Reason upholding all things, through whom came all things, for whom is all things, toward whom all things are moving, having their goal, their telos, in Him and of Him.

Much could be said of that alone, of the centrality of the Incarnation, of how the Incarnation is the locus of all creative work, and so on and so forth. I want to move on to a different point, however.

Namely that because of this any position that reduces the space of God to being a mere explanation for the unknown must be thoroughly rejected. That is, a "God of the gaps" is simply unacceptable. Therefore naturalistic explanations for natural phenomenon is not about removing God from the phenemenon, but rather simply means that--in faith--we recognize God's thorough presence in natural phenomenon.

When we speak of sexual reproduction we can thoroughly explain the process entirely through naturalistic explanations of the phenomenon. This does not remove God from that space, because God is thoroughly present in all natural acts inasmuch as God the Word upholds, sustains, and pervades all things. The act of fertilization and the development of sperma and ovum in my mother's womb which led to me was an act of God, an act of God's creative work in the universe that led to my existence. It was an entirely natural happening, but God is as much in the ordinary as He is in the extraordinary.

It follows therefore that scientific explanations for the mechanisms of the cosmos not only do not, but cannot, remove God because God is Author and Sustainer of those very mechanisms. The force of gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism--the handiwork of the Holy Trinity. Why should it therefore be any different for the observed phenomenon of the evolution of life?

Since we can easily observe the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection, genetic mutation and adaptation and a geologic and fossil record that is adequately understood by these processes and mechanisms why should I not understand God as the Author of biological evolution?

Now when it comes to Scripture, I can readily recognize two things:

1) The purpose of Scripture is to point us to Christ, to direct us to Christ. These are, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the authoritative written word of God by which and through which God speaks His living Word (Jesus Christ) to us.

2) The purpose of Scripture is not to give us a 21st century scientific methodology describing cosmology, cosmogony, or taxonomy. It describes the universe through the language and notions of the people and cultures who put pen to papyrus in order to convey what they wanted to convey and through these the Holy Spirit has preserved and God brings forth to us His Word.

As such I don't need to believe that the earth is a circle resting upon pillars in order to believe Jesus is the Christ, our Lord and Savior, who has overcome the powers of Sin and Death and triumphed over Hell in order to reconcile us to God the Father. That's not the point of the Scriptures and not what they are trying to tell us.

Now when it comes to something, say, the first chapter of Genesis, I can also readily recognize it as mytho-poetic, it is narrative with theological depth and richness that is overlooked and missed when it is forced to be a modernistic scientific text. It describes the ordering of the universe by the authoritative and purposeful will of God, it describes a gorgeous Temple narrative by which God orders the heavens and the earth to be His place, the place of His dwelling and royal rule.

Genesis 1 isn't about how the universe came to be, but rather with what purpose the universe came to be.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[miamited]

hi phillis,

You asked: If I don't have evidence for the sun standing still, how does that affect the origins issue?

The reasoning is this: If you can't find evidence for the miracles of God anywhere else where He claims to have performed a great miracle, then why would you expect to be able to find it in the creation? Friend, a miracle is a miracle. It is an event that occurs outside of any rational, logical, scientific reason.

A pastor teacher friend of mine once did a message about what a miracle really is. He told of an account during the days of the civil war when a man was fired upon and the musket ball passed through his scrotum and lodged in the womb of a woman further down range. The woman became pregnant and everyone declared, "Wow, that's miraculous! It's just a miracle!" But, is it really? Scientifically, logically and reasonably, if male sperm comes into contact with a female egg there is a much, much better than average chance that that woman will become pregnant. So, where's the miracle. That the sperm was delivered to her womb by a musket ball rather than in the normal way that these things happen is certainly a wonder, but is her pregnancy a miracle?

When God turned back the sun it was a miracle and there is no reasonable, logical, sceintific method to 'prove' that such a thing was done. Now, there are some who will contend that the planets somehow aligned specially that day and created a force that greatly slowed the revolving of our earth, but that's just guesswork by those who want, who's heart's desire, is to show some reasonable and logical and scientific evidence that God's word is true. I don't need that, nor do I believe that scenario is true. If God said He did it, then He did it! That's what I believe regarding the creation.

The creation of this realm was an act of God to create another realm of living creatures. Different from the realm of the angels. It was done with a purpose of God to create a realm of living creatures that needed oxygen to provide life to their bodies of flesh. Food to supply the needs of their bodies of flesh. All of the visible universe was created to provide a place for this new creature of God to live. It didn't evolve over millions or billions of years. God had a purpose and He miraculously created all that there is in this realm to fulfill that purpose. He didn't stand by for billions of years watching stars create themselves. He created and named every one. He didn't stand by and watch as some rational, logical process turned some created amoeba into all the animals and man. He, with purpose, spoke and created all that is by the power, wisdom and majesty of His glory. One moment there was nothing but nothingness and the very next there was in that nothingness a singular created form that He made and called the earth. His Spirit hovered over the earth and He proceeded to create the earth and the universe as it needed to be to ultimately (5 days,or 5 revolutions of the planet earth, later) support the life of a creature that He created to glorify and honor and serve Him, just as He had done in the angelic realm. God purposed from the moment He spoke the first, "Let there be...", to build a realm of creation for mankind

God knew that man would sin, but His purpose and ultimate goal is clearly shown us in the very last chapter of the revelation. "Now the dwelling of men is with God and we will be His people and He will be our God." Friend, please understand that when God spoke the first, "Let there be...", He knew that His desire and purpose was to ultimately end with, "Now the dwelling of men is with God and we will be His people and He will be our God." But to get from point A to point C, God's creation had to go through point B. God wanted people who would choose of their own free will to honor and love and believe Him and for those who would He would give eternal life.

Point B is all that is accounted for us in the Scriptures. God created, man sinned. God purposed a way that even though all men sinned He would provide a righteous way in which those who would find the truth and turn back to Him and choose to honor and love Him could, under the conditions of His justice, live with Him as He had intended and purposed when He spoke the first, "Let there be...". Friend, that is what this whole existence of the life of flesh is all about. God is culling out of all that He created a people, who in the end will live with God in the new city Jerusalem come down out of heaven, where He will be our God and we will be His people. It is this ultimate end that the days of this creative event of God is inexorably marching towards. It is very important that you understand the implication of that singular word 'now'.

"Now the dwelling of God is with men..." All of this creation is leading up to that very pronouncement that 'now the dwelling of God is with men'.

We didn't come from some other life form. We were specially and specifically created by God to love, honor and obey Him. And in the end God is going to send forth His angels and He is going to winnow from among all the peoples of the earth a gathering that have chosen to believe and love and follow and adore and praise Him! May that God be praised!

Here is God's final proclamation to His creation. "The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. Friend, that is God's overarching call to all mankind. Come to the truth. Come to trust and believe that you were created for God's pleasure to live eternally with Him in love and trust with all the others who will also come. For some day, the Scriptures declare, God's patience with the wickedness and pain and suffering endured in this life by the thoughts and deeds of those who refuse Him will come to an end and He is going to roll up the heavens like a scroll and He is going to judge all men and then He is going to make all things new again and only those who have believed and trusted in Him will enter into that new city Jerusalem come down out of heaven for us, the bride of His Son. Those who have literally made a covenant of marriage to Jesus. A covenant to love, honor, cherish and obey. Those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Namely that because of this any position that reduces the space of God to being a mere explanation for the unknown must be thoroughly rejected. That is, a "God of the gaps" is simply unacceptable. Therefore naturalistic explanations for natural phenomenon is not about removing God from the phenemenon, but rather simply means that--in faith--we recognize God's thorough presence in natural phenomenon.

I am coming to the conclusion that we need to re-think the meaning of "natural" as it has developed over time. For words also change their meanings over time. That is why we develop new translations of scripture.

I expect if you did a word test on antonyms with people today the word that would most often go into the blank below would be "supernatural".

Hot is to cold as natural is to ______________.

As long as this is our understanding of "nature/natural/naturalistic" it doesn't matter whether one is a Christian or an atheist. The very use of the word "natural" means something that exists and acts with neither humans nor God directing it. Human agency, God's agency, any non-material agency is excluded by this understanding of "natural".

But this was not always so. Darwin did not use the term "natural selection" in contrast to "divine selection". He used it in contrast to "artificial selection" by human breeders. And this fits with an older understanding of "natural" common to both Christians, Jews and ancient pagans.

Given the line above, (Hot is to cold as natural is to _________) the word they would normally place in the blank would be "artificial". Artificial is what is produced by the artifice of human invention. What is not produced by human artifice is natural.

In this view, the realm of nature is pre-eminently the realm of God's activity. God is always active in nature. Humans sow grain in their fields and tend them, but God produces the cedars of Lebanon and the grasses of the meadows. Humans feed themselves and their livestock, but God feeds the ravens and the young lions. Humans build houses for themselves, but God teaches birds to build nests and foxes to dig dens for their young.

This was the view of Newton: when he worked out the law of gravity and how it applied to the orbits of the planets, he never saw his "law of nature" as excluding God, but as including God's work--not in spite of it being natural but BECAUSE it was natural.

Nor did Darwin, however his theological struggles ended up, intend "natural" selection to exclude God, but to be, like gravity, a "law of nature" unimpeded by human artifice, but very much in the hands of nature's God.

The view that "natural" excludes God is a recent aberration of the meaning of term. It feeds into the promotion of evolution as atheism (by both atheists and anti-evolutionists). I say it is high time we rejected this aberrant view of "natural" and went back to the meaning it had for most of the church during most of Christian history--a meaning which assigns all that is natural to God and excludes only human artifice.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm still new here and origins theology is a topic that I've never really looked into. Someone I know has brought it up with me personally but I'm completely in the dark on this matter because it simply hasn't mattered to me. I've been a Christian since I was a young child and all that's mattered is my daily walk with Jesus.

Although origins still isn't an issue for me at all, my curiosity has been invoked. I read the full spectrum of beliefs thread, but that doesn't tell me much about what's behind them. Is anyone willing to explain THEIR view to me and explain what theology and science is behind them?

I am NOT interested in hearing why anyone else is wrong. I just wanna know what makes you think that your view is correct both theologically and scientifically.

It would be great if people posting in this thread were just expressing their own views and not ripping into each other. I'm sure there are enough other threads for that.

I'll probably follow up with questions.

Thanks!!!

If your interested in the Creationist perspective try a little cross referencing, Genesis 1, John 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 1 and Revelation 22, see if any patterns emerge. As for my part in the scientific evidences I hold the opinion that there was neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes (your brain is about 3x the size of a chimps). As for the philosophy behind Darwinism it is based on a naturalistic assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanation for all history, in all periods of time past, present and future. God as an explanation is never allowed but it's not atheistic materialism if you call it theistic. Never deviate from the naturalistic assumptions and always arrange the evidence around them and that is what they call scientific in Darwinian philosophy.

There are other issues, theological, scientific and philosophical but that is the essence of the subject matter, at least for me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FrozenOne]

I'm still new here and origins theology is a topic that I've never really looked into. Someone I know has brought it up with me personally but I'm completely in the dark on this matter because it simply hasn't mattered to me. I've been a Christian since I was a young child and all that's mattered is my daily walk with Jesus.

Although origins still isn't an issue for me at all, my curiosity has been invoked. I read the full spectrum of beliefs thread, but that doesn't tell me much about what's behind them. Is anyone willing to explain THEIR view to me and explain what theology and science is behind them?

Thanks!!!

Well hello and welcome to CF. My view is that the young earth view is the correct one, aproximately 6000 years. The theology is there in the Bible, as long as you are reading it in a literal sense. Therefore the 7 day creation week would actually be 7, 24 hour peroids. Even Jesus knew what he was talking about when he refered to at the beginning God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

Those were just a few examples of course, there are plenty more references to the early part of Genesis from the New Testament treating it like a known historical fact.

Sciencewise, instead of assuming slow buildup of layers over millions of years. These layers show no signs of erosion in between layers as one should suspect if it took that long. But instead, about a mile thick of sedimentary layers were laid down in under a year by a global flood, with soon to be fossils trapped in those layers.

The mud transported by todays major rivers is dumped where the river meets the ocean. Measurements have been made of the rate, and the total amount that has been dumped there already. They indicate that the major rivers of the world have only been flowing for 4500 years or less. This would agree for the timeline of a global flood.

There is way to much to go thru here, so why not look at a free online book. Here is the link:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Figure1.html

 

[NGC 6712]

Sciencewise, instead of assuming slow buildup of layers over millions of years. These layers show no signs of erosion in between layers as one should suspect if it took that long.

Please enroll in a geology class. Why do people state falsehoods? For the record such things are called unconformities. Again, since you are obviously not a geologist or have ever been taught in such an area why state a well known falsehood? Why?????

The mud transported by todays major rivers is dumped where the river meets the ocean. Measurements have been made of the rate, and the total amount that has been dumped there already. They indicate that the major rivers of the world have only been flowing for 4500 years or less. This would agree for the timeline of a global flood.

More geological/hydrological nonsense. You would people could formulate a simple model and use all the facts as opposed to something as ridiculous as this tired and wrong argument.

 

[Assyrian]

hi Frozen, welcome to the forum

Well hello and welcome to CF. My view is that the young earth view is the correct one, aproximately 6000 years. The theology is there in the Bible, as long as you are reading it in a literal sense. Therefore the 7 day creation week would actually be 7, 24 hour peroids. Even Jesus knew what he was talking about when he refered to at the beginning God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

Didn't Jesus spend three years teaching his disciples not to take everything literally?

Those were just a few examples of course, there are plenty more references to the early part of Genesis from the New Testament treating it like a known historical fact.

You need to be careful here, just because you read the passages literally and people in the NT quote them, it doesn't mean they were interpreting them the way you do. Have you noticed when Jesus quoted Genesis, it wasn't to teach a literal Adam and Eve or a young earth, but to teach about marriage and divorce? He quoted the book of Genesis as authoritative, but like his own parables, it was an authoritative lesson about how we are to live our lives today.

Sciencewise, instead of assuming slow buildup of layers over millions of years. These layers show no signs of erosion in between layers as one should suspect if it took that long. But instead, about a mile thick of sedimentary layers were laid down in under a year by a global flood, with soon to be fossils trapped in those layers.

The mud transported by todays major rivers is dumped where the river meets the ocean. Measurements have been made of the rate, and the total amount that has been dumped there already. They indicate that the major rivers of the world have only been flowing for 4500 years or less. This would agree for the timeline of a global flood.
There is way to much to go thru here, so why not look at a free online book. Here is the link:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Figure1.html

Are you talking about the spread of river deltas? Bear in mind these deltas form where the river meets the sea, so growth of a delta would only tell you how long the sea has been at that level, not the age of the earth.

The Mississippi River Delta Basin
The Mississippi River has had a profound effect on the landforms of coastal Louisiana. The entire area is the product of sediment deposition following the latest rise in sea level about 5,000 years ago. Each Mississippi River deltaic cycle was initiated by a gradual capture of the Mississippi River by a distributary which offered a shorter route to the Gulf of Mexico. After abandonment of an older delta lobe, which would cut off the primary supply of fresh water and sediment, an area would undergo compaction, subsidence, and erosion. The old delta lobe would begin to retreat as the gulf advanced, forming lakes, bays, and sounds. Concurrently, a new delta lobe would begin its advance gulfward. This deltaic process has, over the past 5,000 years, caused the coastline of south Louisiana to advance gulfward from 15 to 50 miles, forming the present-day coastal plain.
​

What we are dealing with here is the sea level rise at the end of the last Ice Age.

 

[Jase]

And that would be based on what. You see, the God I know, he can stop the sun in the sky.

I don't think you realize how ridiculous this sounds. The sun does not move in relation to the Earth, therefore the Sun can't stop in the sky. Do you even know how our days occur? Are you a geocentrist?

 

[Jase]

Well hello and welcome to CF. My view is that the young earth view is the correct one, aproximately 6000 years. The theology is there in the Bible, as long as you are reading it in a literal sense.

Do you take the Bible references to a solid dome on top of the Earth, a flat earth, a geocentric earth, etc. literally?

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you take the Bible references to a solid dome on top of the Earth, a flat earth, a geocentric earth, etc. literally?

There is no reference to the top of the earth unless it has the requisite 'like' or 'as' qualifying it as a metaphor. There is certainly no reference to the earth being flat, in fact, it is referred to as a sphere. There is absolutely no reference to geocentric cosmology but the few verses suggesting it would reflect the common understanding of the time. Astronomers adhered to a geocentric earth, literally, with a virtual unanimous consent.

Do you think these pedantic digs reflect a Christian attitude toward Christian theism, literally?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[FrozenOne]

There is no reference to the top of the earth unless it has the requisite 'like' or 'as' qualifying it as a metaphor. There is certainly no reference to the earth being flat, in fact, it is referred to as a sphere. There is absolutely no reference to geocentric cosmology but the few verses suggesting it would reflect the common understanding of the time. Astronomers adhered to a geocentric earth, literally, with a virtual unanimous consent.

Have a nice day
Mark

I agree with there being no verses refering to the earth being flat. Instead, there are verses which suggest the earth is a sphere.

Job 26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.
10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

 

[Calminian]

...I am NOT interested in hearing why anyone else is wrong. I just wanna know what makes you think that your view is correct both theologically and scientifically.

I appreciate your inquiry. I hope it's an educational experience. In a nutshell, the theological implications of the origins debate is this. "death is the result of sin." The real controversy is really tied up in that statement. Did death enter the world through sin, or was death and suffering built into the original "very good" world God made? Any model you come up with, will fall into one of those two categories. I'm in the camp of the former. I think it's theologically imperative for sin to precede death.

It would be great if people posting in this thread were just expressing their own views and not ripping into each other. I'm sure there are enough other threads for that.

Unfortunately, that's the nature of theology discussions. Even the bible talks about the errors of others. Even Jesus talked about the errors of others, as did his apostles. As Paul explained to Timothy,

2Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Wish I could predict that all will be agreeable here. I think you'll be somewhat disappointed. I do hope you see everyone disagreeing agreeably in a spirit of humility.

 

[Calminian]

hi philis,

Good to have you here. Unfortunately the very definition of a miracle precludes any scientific understanding.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

And I would second this as well. "Evidence," and "scientific evidence" should not be viewed as synonymous. In courts of law, we have several types of evidence, including scientific evidence, but also including others types like corroborating testimonial evidence. And in many cases, testimonial evidence trumps scientific evidence, especially in cases where humans have tempered with scientific evidence.

When it comes to discerning history, testimonial evidence is our primary evidence. We have very little scientific evidence that George Washington was our first president, or that he even lived. But the testimonial evidence is undeniable. In the same way, the bible is a collection of 66 books, from 40 authors from 3 different continents, spanning thousands of years. It is the best corroborative historical evidence we have in existence.

I don't think any creationist here would espouse blind faith. Rather, we ask that you consider looking at naturalistic theories in light of the corroborative testimony God has given to us.

And BTW, this is also not to say that science has no place in the origins debate. It does! It's just important to understand, that pure science cannot ever verify a miracle. Scientific theories must preclude non-uniform events like miracles a priori. So ultimately, creation can never be a scientific theory.

 

[miamited]

hi jase,

You responded: I don't think you realize how ridiculous this sounds. The sun does not move in relation to the Earth, therefore the Sun can't stop in the sky. Do you even know how our days occur? Are you a geocentrist?

You see, that's exactly why people won't believe the literal account of the creation. It's impossible!!

So, what's your take on this piece of Scripture?: So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

I agree with there being no verses refering to the earth being flat. Instead, there are verses which suggest the earth is a sphere.

Job 26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.
10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

This verse and others bear a striking resemblance to the Genesis account. Obviously it has very little to do with cosmology or geography but the earth was covered in water and darkness before creation. So much for Darwinian gradualism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I agree with there being no verses refering to the earth being flat. Instead, there are verses which suggest the earth is a sphere.

Job 26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
9 He covers the face of the full moon,
spreading his clouds over it.
10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters
for a boundary between light and darkness.

This verse and others bear a striking resemblance to the Genesis account. Obviously it has very little to do with cosmology or geography but the earth was covered in water and darkness before creation. So much for Darwinian gradualism.

Grace and peace,
Mark

A great example of eisegesis by both of you.

You are clearly reading into scripture your modern views of cosmology.

Where is a single word in those verses that implies a spherical earth?

And what does any of it have to do with evolution?

 

[Jase]

hi jase,

You responded: I don't think you realize how ridiculous this sounds. The sun does not move in relation to the Earth, therefore the Sun can't stop in the sky. Do you even know how our days occur? Are you a geocentrist?

You see, that's exactly why people won't believe the literal account of the creation. It's impossible!!

So, what's your take on this piece of Scripture?: So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Well, of course it's impossible, because it makes no logical or natural sense. If the intention were to keep daylight going for an entire day, stopping the sun would have no effect, since the sun doesn't move in relation to Earth.

 

[Calminian]

Do you take the Bible references to a solid dome on top of the Earth, a flat earth, a geocentric earth, etc. literally?

I would if they existed. They're just not there. Firmament is a transliterated latin word, that's caused some confusion, but the actual word, rayqia, is merely what God called the heavens. It's neither a dome, nor solid, nor even a divider of any kind. It is the actual heavens.

Flat earth is a completely myth, especially when you consider that erits to the ancient Bible writers merely meant dry land.

And geocentrism is also myth considering the Bible writers had no concepts of planets and orbit patterns yet. They didn't even think in those terms. Even in modern times, all descriptions of movement are relative to a point of reference. Even modern astrophysicists speak of sunsets.

Read literally, in its literary and historical context and none of these things are alluded to, even remotely.