If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[Arikay]

He may have walked away from his god, but he is currently acting much more christ like than you as he doesn't turn to insults and attacks as we have seen others do.

So maybe you should step back and see how you are representing your god. I will tell you, it isn't as good as you think.

You say youre not even a ''christian" now and Im supposed to take YOUR word for anything as pertaining to the meaning of the scriptures ?



Let me get this straight......you walked away from YOUR God and King, Away from YOUR personal creator........the One who loves you so much He sent His Son to die that terrible death........ALL over me..... you give me and my kind far too much credit...
YOu walked away because YOU couldnt keep on the path.....


Im sure you all would prefer if i just ignored scripture and agreed with anything you said......
Thats not going to happen...

 

[Skillz151]

You say youre not even a ''christian" now and Im supposed to take YOUR word for anything as pertaining to the meaning of the scriptures ?

No, but I was a 'christian' and I know what I'm talking about. Your line of thinking is one-sided, you are failing to even consider other options, let alone post an intelligent comment that SHOULD be able to refute the opponents position. Just because "i'm not a Christian" does not mean I don't know what Scripture is saying. Maybe you think I 'made this all up on my own'.... I think you should do some research on your own, starting with how one should read the Bible. Everything in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally... Jesus even spoke in parables which illustrated a point. Symbolic language can be found all throughout the Bible. Maybe you should reconsider your options and keep an 'open-mind' when studying scripture, You might actually understand the message.

Let me get this straight......you walked away from YOUR God and King, Away from YOUR personal creator........the One who loves you so much He sent His Son to die that terrible death........ALL over me..... you give me and my kind far too much credit...
YOu walked away because YOU couldnt keep on the path.....

I never said I left because of JOBOB... lol You clearly missed my point.... I was trying to say, that there are 2 many christians who think they 'know' it all and I simply wouldn't want to be associated with these types of people.

And no that is not the 'only' reason I left... expand your thought processes a little man. Stop being so narrow minded... it's like you have tunnel vision.

Im sure you all would prefer if i just ignored scripture and agreed with anything you said......
Thats not going to happen...[/

I could seriously give a rat's ... about who you agree with. It seems to me that you are the one who is actually ignoring scripture. Come off your high horse and let's have a serious discussion Bob.

The only thing that I would 'prefer' from you, would be a decent comment that would show 'my' interpretations to be false.

 

[Skillz151]

YOu walked away because YOU couldnt keep on the path.....

I walked away because I couldn't keep on the path? Is that suppose to make sense....


I'm sorry Jobob, but I have actually been defending the Bible. Maybe you think I have been attacking scripture simply because I wear the Agnostic symbol. I think if anything, the interpretations would strengthen my faith and strengthen the accountability of the Bible as being inspired by God.

I'm not contradicting scripture or anything in the Bible. But I am contradicting false teachings and doctrines that have been passed on through years of tradition. Through my studies I have found certain aspects of the Bible to have been misconstrued and contorted into false teachings. Such as an eternal hell, an immortal soul, baby baptism, etc... I suggest you do some study of your own before commenting or claiming that I am wrong. I see you have access to the internet, what's stopping you?

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

Do you refuse to believe anything that contradicts scripture, Or do you refuse to believe anything that contradicts your interpretation of scripture?

This Scriptural passage seems very clear to me. "And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day." That sounds to me as though God were telling us in quite plain terms, "I am referring to twenty-four hour periods!" So instead of asking rhetorical questions, show me how I'm wrong.

scripture seems to suggests the earth is flat, and that the geocentric model is right. Do you think the earth is flat and the geocentric model is right? Or have you reinterpreted scripture to fit what you want to be right?

I asked my pastor about the flat-earth bit, and he said that was the wrong way to look at it. he knows the Hebrew text quite well, and he says that it does not suggest a flat earth.
Where does the Bible set forth geo-centrism?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This Scriptural passage seems very clear to me. "And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day." That sounds to me as though God were telling us in quite plain terms, "I am referring to twenty-four hour periods!" So instead of asking rhetorical questions, show me how I'm wrong.

Of course there were those evenings and mornings before the sun was even created which you can't actually explain.

I asked my pastor about the flat-earth bit, and he said that was the wrong way to look at it. he knows the Hebrew text quite well, and he says that it does not suggest a flat earth.

So he says. Others disagree.

Where does the Bible set forth geo-centrism?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

The earth is fixed and immovable.

1 Chronicles 16:30: " Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously...."

Psalm 104:5: " Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

and that;

The sun goes around it.

Ecclesiastes 1, 5:"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Psalm 19:4-6 Their line [the heavens] is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (I added the bold)

And of course Joshua stopped the sun, not the rotation of the earth.

Joshua 10:12-13: "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Then there is Isaiah 38:8

"Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees...ten degrees backward. So THE SUN RETURNED ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down...." (Isaiah 38:8)

Isaiah didn't say the earth turned back 10 degrees.

Now it is true that we commonly speak of the sun rising and setting but we don't speak of the earth being fixed and never moving. The speaks many times of the earth being fixed and the sun moving but never of the earth moving or rotating.

Here are few sites from "modern" geocentric YECs.

http://www.fixedearth.com/links/gram_semant.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/geocexpl.htm
http://www.geocentricity.com/whygeocentricity.htm


The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

God also creates night and day before he ever creates the sun or the stars, yet in present day, day is created by the sun and night by the absence of the sun. Should we take this to mean that a sun is not required for day? Or maybe that the entire passage is a bit more symbolic than people seem to think.
Again, in Narnia Aslan is literally a lion, yet is also a symbol. Is it possible that even though the scripture says "evening and morning" that they are also symbols?

Of course its the wrong way to look at it, Now. In the past (actually around the time of Jesus) people wrote books that used the bible as their reason that the earth was flat. I guess they took the bible a bit too literally.
Here is an entire site of people who still believe in the geocentric model based on the bible,
http://www.geocentricbible.com/

So it seems like you are letting secular knowledge influence your supposable literal reading of the bible.

This Scriptural passage seems very clear to me. "And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day." That sounds to me as though God were telling us in quite plain terms, "I am referring to twenty-four hour periods!" So instead of asking rhetorical questions, show me how I'm wrong.

I asked my pastor about the flat-earth bit, and he said that was the wrong way to look at it. he knows the Hebrew text quite well, and he says that it does not suggest a flat earth.
Where does the Bible set forth geo-centrism?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Martin Luther (Tischreden)

This has a familiar ring somehow. Does it remind you of anyone?

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

To go with Frum's quote, I thought I would posts a snippet about Cosmas (I was wrong, he didn't live around jesus's time, but around 6th century AD)

"[Cosmas] subsequently became a monk, and about 548, in the retirement of a Sinai cloister, wrote a work called Topographia Christiana. Its chief object is to denounce the false and ,heathen doctrine of the rotundity of the earth, and to vindicate the scriptural account of the world."
http://53.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CO/COSMAS.htm

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
-- Cardinal Bellarmine

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

Of course there were those evenings and mornings before the sun was even created which you can't actually explain.

Allow me to quote myself again.

I don't know if "evening" and "Morning" had as much to do with lighting as they did with time. I think God was telling us that he was referring to 24 hour days, not "epochs".

An interesting side-bar--I find it intriguing that God does not here mention "night", just evening and morning. this kind of reminds me of the work of John Ronald Reul Tolkein. In his work the Silmarillion there was a period of time in which Valinor (heaven) was lit by two trees: one with golden fruit and one with silver. Their lights waxed and waned, so that one was always in full light; occasionally they were equally bright, and then the "sunlight" and "moonlight" were mingled in a sort of evening (or morning, depending on which tree was waning and which was waxing). Perhaps This is what the heavenly lighting will be like, and perhaps it is what the pre-Sun light was.
[/being imaginative]

So he says. Others disagree.

So now it comes down to, "Do I believe my pastor, or some "others"? I don't know whick is better educated, so I don't have to make a decision on that count until I find that out.

<Bible verses>

Note that the world isn't moved from its course. Its path remains the same, ever predictable. I don't know the Hebrew, however, so I can't tell you whether it might be interpreted this way. That's just my preliminary response; I'll probably ask my pastor for his take on it.

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

This is referring to the sun's position in relation to the viewer.

Their line [the heavens] is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." (I added the bold)

What? Do we hold a heliocentric view of the universe now? Last I heard, the sun did have a circuit: it's revolving around some black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy.

<texts from Joshua and Isaiah>

Again, this is referring to the position of the sun in relation to the viewer. It doesn't directly say that the revolves around the earth. Genesis does directly say that the earth was created in six days.

God also creates night and day because he ever creates the sun or the stars, yet in present day, day is created by the sun and night by the absence of the sun. Should we take this to mean that a sun is not required for day? Or maybe that the entire passage is a bit more symbolic than people seem to think.

Again, I think God had his own lighting system rigged up before the Sun, moon and stars were created. Thomas Edison used gas lighting and/or candles to work on his lightbulbs; and, while God doesn't need light any more than he needs anything, It's not hard to imagine that he might have let the light of Heaven spill into the Heavens until their lights were able to fill them from within.

Again, in Narnia Aslan is literally a lion, yet is also a symbol. Is it possible that even though the scripture says "evening and morning" that they are also symbols?

OK, so of what are these times of day symbolic, in your opinion?

Of course its the wrong way to look at it, Now.

It is understandable that the people of that time would have taken it that literally, simply because there weren't all that many other options. But I don't think science contradicts the Bible in this case. The Bible can be "interpreted" in such a way that it agrees with science, in this case, without having to decide that a part of the Bible was meant to be no more than a myth.

So it seems like you are letting secular knowledge influence your supposable literal reading of the bible.

I can't see the logic behind this statement. Perhaps you should bring the logic to the forefront and let me examine it.

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

In regard to the recently added quotes--What bearing do they have on my arguement? I am no more a geocentrist than I am an evolutionist.

Of whom should it remind me?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Allow me to quote myself again.

So now it comes down to, "Do I believe my pastor, or some "others"? I don't know whick is better educated, so I don't have to make a decision on that count until I find that out.

Note that the world isn't moved from its course. Its path remains the same, ever predictable.

But it is moving on its path and not fixed so if you are really going to take the Bible literally you should be a geocentrist.

This is referring to the sun's position in relation to the viewer.

But that is not what it literally says.

What? Do we hold a heliocentric view of the universe now? Last I heard, the sun did have a circuit: it's revolving around some black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy.

It is pretty clear that this is not the circuit that is being referred to. Does the sun heat the entire universe? Do you think Joshua stopped the rotation of the sun around the center of mass of the galaxy? He did tell the sun to stand still.

Again, this is referring to the position of the sun in relation to the viewer. It doesn't directly say that the revolves around the earth. Genesis does directly say that the earth was created in six days. It says the sun stopped.

Of course you think this now. 500 years ago you would have had no doubt at all that it meant exactly what it says.

Again, I think God had his own lighting system rigged up before the Sun, moon and stars were created. Thomas Edison used gas lighting and/or candles to work on his lightbulbs; and, while God doesn't need light any more than he needs anything, It's not hard to imagine that he might have let the light of Heaven spill into the Heavens until their lights were able to fill them from within.

It's not hard for you to imagine God doing anything. That doesn't mean it is actually what God did.

OK, so of what are these times of day symbolic, in your opinion?

IMO the story was constructed to justify the celebration of the Sabbath and devotion of one entire day a week to religion by people who were otherwise very busy. After all why would God need to rest?

It is understandable that the people of that time would have taken it that literally, ismply because there weren't all that many other options. But I don't think science contradicts the Bible in this case. The Bible can be "interpreted" in such a way that it agrees with science, in this case, without having to decide that a part of the Bible was meant to be no more than a myth.

So now you are admitting to "interpretation". The Bible can also be interpreted to mean that creation took far more than 6 literal days and that the flood of Noah was a local event. I think it is pretty hard to interpret creating plants a "day" before the sun without contradicting science.


Here is a site with a large collection of geocentric and even flat earth verses. It also discusses the Bible's veiw of the stars.

http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

1) You think god had his own lighting system, but where in scripture does it say he did?

2) The times of day could be symbols of eons of work. Or they could have been gods way of explaining the week time system to people.

3) You do realize that the modern idea of a round earth Does turn many passages into myth, and that a modern day heliocentric model Does turn many passages into myth.

4) The logic behind the statement is that it appears (as you have just admitted) that you are letting science reinterpret the bible for you.

5) The point of the quotes was to show that before people had our scientific knowledge (meaning they only had the bible) a literal reading of the bible said the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.

Allow me to quote myself again.

So now it comes down to, "Do I believe my pastor, or some "others"? I don't know whick is better educated, so I don't have to make a decision on that count until I find that out.

Note that the world isn't moved from its course. Its path remains the same, ever predictable. I don't know the Hebrew, however, so I can't tell you whether it might be interpreted this way. That's just my preliminary response; I'll probably ask my pastor for his take on it.
This is referring to the sun's position in relation to the viewer.

What? Do we hold a heliocentric view of the universe now? Last I heard, the sun did have a circuit: it's revolving around some black hole somewhere in the center of our galaxy.
Again, this is referring to the position of the sun in relation to the viewer. It doesn't directly say that the revolves around the earth. Genesis does directly say that the earth was created in six days.
Again, I think God had his own lighting system rigged up before the Sun, moon and stars were created. Thomas Edison used gas lighting and/or candles to work on his lightbulbs; and, while God doesn't need light any more than he needs anything, It's not hard to imagine that he might have let the light of Heaven spill into the Heavens until their lights were able to fill them from within.
OK, so of what are these times of day symbolic, in your opinion?

It is understandable that the people of that time would have taken it that literally, simply because there weren't all that many other options. But I don't think science contradicts the Bible in this case. The Bible can be "interpreted" in such a way that it agrees with science, in this case, without having to decide that a part of the Bible was meant to be no more than a myth.

I can't see the logic behind this statement. Perhaps you should bring the logic to the forefront and let me examine it.

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader
[/size][/color][/font]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In regard to the recently added quotes--What bearing do they have on my arguement? I am no more a geocentrist than I am an evolutionist.

Of whom should it remind me?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

So you don't really take the Bible literally. Aren't you afraid of being on a slippery slope? The Luther verse reminds me of many people who claim to follow the word of God over science when what they are actually following is their interpretation of the Bible over science.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

But it is moving on its path and not fixed so if you are really going to take the Bible literally you should be a geocentrist.

I'm going to ask my pastor about the Hebrew. My smart money tells me that it isn't as simplistic as all that.

But that is not what it literally says.

Allow me to quote you:

Now it is true that we commonly speak of the sun rising and setting

What I said did not directly contradict anything in the Bible. It simply added onto it. That is much diferent from changing what it says and saying it's all symbolic.

It is pretty clear that this is not the circuit that is being referred to. Does the sun heat the entire universe? Do you think Joshua stopped the rotation of the sun around the center of mass of the galaxy? He did tell the sun to stand still.

My statement was in reference to one quote only.Joshua's passage has already been addressed (although, since hte moon also stopped moving, it's entirely possible that God stopped the entire universe for a few hours). As to the sun's heat--of course the sun doesn't heat the entire universe. I was referring only to the passage about the circuit.

Of course you think this now. 500 years ago you would have had no doubt at all that it meant exactly what it says.

Granted. and 500 years ago you would have agreed with me.

It's not hard for you to imagine God doing anything. That doesn't mean it is actually what God did.

You were challenging whether my model worked. I do not claim that my word on the subject is Law; I do claim that there is a plausible route by which my idea of the passage's meaning could be correct. And to quote others on this forum, "When there is a possible route, you can no longer say that it is impossible".

IMO the story was constructed to justify the celebration of the Sabbath and devotion of one entire day a week to religion by people who were otherwise very busy. After all why would God need to rest?

You don't think God could have done this without making up the whole myth? He has so many laws that would seem arbitrary to the Jews of that day, what diference could one more make? And why bother mentioning evenings and mornings? I doubt if the Jews would have given a hoot as to whether the days were of 24 hour periods or 1 million year periods.

So now you are admitting to "interpretation". The Bible can also be interpreted to mean that creation took far more than 6 literal days and that the flood of Noah was a local event. I think it is pretty hard to interpret creating plants a "day" before the sun without contradicting science.

Of course I interpret. Interpretation is often necessary. Problems arise when the interpretation cotradicts the passage.

1) You think god had his own lighting system, but where in scripture does it say he did?

Nowhere specifically . .. but he'll light up heaven . . .

2) The times of day could be symbols of eons of work. Or they could have been gods way of explaining the week time system to people.

I don't think so.

3) You do realize that the modern idea of a round earth Does turn many passages into myth, and that a modern day heliocentric model Does turn many passages into myth.

Not myth, just wrong previous interpretation. With new light of knowledge, these passages can easily become scientifically accurate.

4) The logic behind the statement is that it appears (as you have just admitted) that you are letting science reinterpret the bible for you.

Science did nothing of the kind. The Bible never directly stated that the earth is flat, or that it is the center of hte universe. If it did that,I might have a problem. as it is., it doesn't.

So you don't really take the Bible literally. Aren't you afraid of being on a slippery slope? The Luther verse reminds me of many people who claim to follow the word of God over science when what they are actually following is their interpretation of the Bible over science.

Great. not only do you misinterpret the Bible, you misinterpret me. I don't have time for htis at the moment, I'll post in more detail later on.

best of regards
the_cloaked-crusader

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm going to ask my pastor about the Hebrew. My smart money tells me that it isn't as simplistic as all that.

Allow me to quote you:

but you left out part of my statement. We DON'T speak of the earth being fixed and immobile or resting on pillars for that matter.

What I said did not directly contradict anything in the Bible. It simply added onto it. That is much diferent from changing what it says and saying it's all symbolic.

If you are adding onto it you ARE changing it.

My statement was in reference to one quote only.Joshua's passage has already been addressed (although, since hte moon also stopped moving, it's entirely possible that God stopped the entire universe for a few hours). As to the sun's heat--of course the sun doesn't heat the entire universe.

But the passage says that NOTHING escapes the heat. So it is not literally correct is it?

Granted. and 500 years ago you would have agreed with me.

400 years ago I might have been arguing for a heliocentric solar system and people like you and joebob would have said you would stick with the clear geocentric teaching of immutable scripture rather than changable science which could change again any day. After all Galileo couldn't PROVE that the earth goes around the sun.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

"Not myth, just wrong previous interpretation. With new light of knowledge, these passages can easily become scientifically accurate."

That sounded like something that would be said by a theistic evolutionist, how odd.
No, things become myth and symbolic. Unless of course you can show us the gates to the oceans, or the storehouses in the sky, or how stoping the sun will make the day become longer, etc.


"Science did nothing of the kind. The Bible never directly stated that the earth is flat, or that it is the center of hte universe. If it did that,I might have a problem. as it is., it doesn't."

The bible doesn't directly state the earth is young either.
If you ignore science and just stick with a literal bible, you get a young earth, a flat earth, and a geocentric model.

The fact of the matter is that you have reinterpreted the bible based on extra-biblical knowledge already. So your views are based on half science and half bible, which is exactly what theistic evolutionists do. That suggests that you follow creationism not because the bible says so, but because you want the bible to say so.

[snip]

 

[jobob]

This Scriptural passage seems very clear to me. "And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day." That sounds to me as though God were telling us in quite plain terms, "I am referring to twenty-four hour periods!" So instead of asking rhetorical questions, show me how I'm wrong.

They cant show you that youre understanding it wrong.
and if they dig too deeply into the Hebrew, its only going to make their situation worse.....
The texts says ''day'' and it means ''day''........there IS no way around it

I asked my pastor about the flat-earth bit, and he said that was the wrong way to look at it. he knows the Hebrew text quite well, and he says that it does not suggest a flat earth.

It doesnt........these folks just want to play on the word used... 'circle' instead of 'ball'.....

Not a very convincing arguement to me.....

 

[jobob]

1) You think god had his own lighting system, but where in scripture does it say he did?

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
(Rev 22:5)

yeah.....no ones listeing

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of flat earth, a literal reading of the bible more strongly points to a flat earth than it does a 6000 year old one.