Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

[Jamdoc]

I believe evolution is not random, or is just the result of creatures or species or life just simply "adapting", and/or combined with just the survival or the fittest, etc, but is by design and is a program written, directed/manipulated by, and created by God...

DNA seems to suggest that a bit...

An intelligent design, or an intelligent program, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

It is intelligent design and I think that the code shows more evidence of intelligent design than most other pieces of worldly evidence. Each 3 nucleotide bases codes for an amino acid, and there are small enzymes, cellular machinery that unzip the double helix, and read those bases, and then put it's corresponding opposite base (since they form pairs)to form a new strand, and ribosomes (more small intracellular machinery) that reads those strands, 3 by 3, for each amino acid, and forms chains of amino acids that then fold up into 4 layers of 3 dimensional structure. It's elegant and complex. Not something that would just happen spontaneously. The code also has redundancies and a signal for start and stop. It also can correct errors. It's the programming language of life and our creator is the author of it. Like a computer program, the resurrection is our 2.0 release. Though from what's described there, we might not be based on the same code then, there's a lot more supernatural about the glorified body and even in the new heaven and new earth that might not operate on any sort of natural laws like this world does.

 

[JAL]

What problems?

Exactly. There's the blind eye and deaf ear. I rest my case.

He simply gave the example of a 7 day week. Not really that difficult to see...Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

And all the Hebrew scholars support that simple reading? Think again, friend. You're failing to distinguish between their literal translation versus actual geological history. A great many seminary professors, for example, believe that Genesis literally posits a crystalline firmanent to uphold the stars of our solar system but they don't actually think the literal reading is actual recorded history. BTW, what's your position on the crystalline firmament? I take it literally.

So you need to desist from the nonsense about "everything obviously happened in 7 24-hour periods". Not only is that NOT obvious, it seems blatantly contrary to fact.

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

You're just once again regurgitating Bob-dogma. In point of fact, "Bob's way or the highway" are not the only two possible interpretations of scripture.

I freely admit I have not read your "every post" -- I was just responding to that one.

I am new to this thread. It was only one post, and it was in direct reply to you (post 307).

So then "you" questioning God is "compelling"??? How is that even an argument?

More Bob-dogma. It's Bob's way or the highway. Anyone who disagrees with Bob's reading is questioning God. Take a look at post 307 for an alternative reading (if you can open your eyes for a few seconds).

Are you really that opposed to take one day off in a week??
Is that even a point of argument?

Huh? Not sure to whom you replying here.

Is this where you convince the reader that God Himself cannot possibly know of any other source of light - other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles from Earth?

See post 307.

Seriously?? that's even an argument against the Word of God?

There it is again, you haven't read my post AS YOU ADMITTED but you've got the gall to insinuate, "If it doesn't agree with my reading, it must be against the Word of God."
Bob's way or the highway.

Here's the difference between me and many debaters like yourself. I am honest about the fact that exegesis is difficult and tricky. Often we are faced with several reasonable, competing interpretations of a passage. Thus on those occasions when I DO vigorously assert a conclusion, it isn't based on conventional exegesis alone. Rather it's based on exegesis tempered by the law of non-contradiction . If a conclusion in one area of doctrine leads to contradictions in other areas of doctrine, I can rule out that interpretation.

Won't all theologians claim to honor the law of non-contradiction? The truth is that all theologians, from what I've seen, begin with a set of non-negotiables presumed in their eyes to be unquestionable, for example the assumption that God is infinite, impassible, omnipotent, intangible, omnipresent, immutable, incorruptible, etc, etc etc. And only from that point onwards they attempt to extrapolate in non-contradictory ways. They refuse to question whether their foundational set of assumptions themselves are mutually contradictory/exclusive. Thus they honor the law of non-contradiction only to a point.

While conventional exegesis is exceedingly difficult, logical contradictions are easy to spot. For example if you tell me that an immutable God became man, I'm gonna call out the contradiction. You can scream "hypostatic union" until the cows come home - I couldn't care less - the fact remains that you've already contradicted yourself.

Because of that approach - which is unique to me from what I've seen - I'm actually in a much better position than most to claim "My way or the highway." But nonetheless I try to refrain from that attitude.

And BASED on that approach, I can assure you that God did not create the world in 7 24-hour periods. Perhaps I'll show you why that claim leads to a blatant logical contradiction - just as blatant as claiming that an immutable God became man.

 

[Jipsah]

God needs to be honest.

Then why, in your opinion, did He chose to make the universe look old?

At that point blind faith in evolutionism becomes a problem.

as opposed to blind faith in your sect's doctrine? I se that as a problem. It requires you to believe silly things.

 

[BobRyan]

Then why, in your opinion, did He chose to make the universe look old?

You can't be serious.

How foolish someone would be to take that solution and accuse God of "being a liar" the moment He created Adam and Eve -- because on that very day it would be "observed" that Adam does not "look like a 24 hour old zygote.. but instead looks like a full grown adult" in his 20's.

How irrational that wild reaction would appear to be -- yet this is the very form of "logic" you are proposing is it not?

Are you even being serious with the use of that sort of thing as the "substance" of the argument which you rely on to oppose the text?

Many Bible believing Christians freely admit to..
7 day creation week
world wide flood
literal incarnation of God the Son - into the man Jesus.
bodily resurrection of Christ
bodily ascension of Christ into heaven

blind faith in your sect's doctrine? I se that as a problem. It requires you to believe silly things.

It is difficult to take your argument seriously at that point

 

[BobRyan]

Quite possibly that's overstating the point. Often, those who seek to reconcile an old earth with Genesis are actually helping to reduce apostasy, because some Christians have drifted from the faith when they realized the two seem to be in conflict.

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

And yet you conveniently ignored my previous post.

I freely admit I have not read your "every post" -- I was just responding to that one.

Both YEC and ToE are questionable at points, and thus the truth might be a bit of a middle ground (OEC for example), but you conveniently turn a blind eye and deaf ear to those problems remaining content to scorn your opponents.

That's more of a subjective emotional case you are making just then. I will settle for facts.

So God, who is supposed to set the exemplary model of labor, worked 6 24-hour periods (and it wasn't real work in your view) and then - stopped?

So then "you" questioning God is "compelling"???
How is that even an argument?

He simply gave the example of a 7 day week. Not really that difficult to see.

Are you really that opposed to take one day off in a week??
Is that even a point of argument?

And where did the light come from - if the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day?

Is this where you convince the reader that God Himself cannot possibly know of any other source of light - other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles from Earth?

Seriously?? that's even an argument against the Word of God?

Please be serious.

=========================================
Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

hint: Sunday at 5:51 PM #264

Exactly. There's the blind eye and deaf ear. I rest my case.

And all the Hebrew scholars support that simple reading?

You can see that when you bend the point that way - it is clear for all of us to see - right?

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Quote "me" when you want to oppose something I said... you are "quoting you" instead.

I said "as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware -- see Sunday at 5:51 PM #264

So the obviously -- those two doctrines on origins (evolutionism vs creation) "are not the same" -- and a we all know - Moses was no darwinist."

I did not quote you saying "all Hebrew scholars".

I prefer facts.

Because of that approach - which is unique to me from what I've seen - I'm actually in a much better position than most to claim "My way or the highway." .

Less creative writing ... more facts please

 

[BobRyan]

A great many seminary professors, for example, believe that Genesis literally posits a crystalline firmanent .

You are free to post a text that speaks of a "crystalline firmament" . I did not find one in my Bible. What Bible do you use??

My reference was to "top scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities" -- and I have a reference for it.... do you?

Sunday at 5:51 PM #264

 

[JAL]

When we see that the two are in conflict we either have to deny the text or deny the guess work found in blind faith evolutionism.

Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.



I freely admit I have not read your "every post" -- I was just responding to that one.



That's more of a subjective emotional case you are making just then. I will settle for facts.



So then "you" questioning God is "compelling"???
How is that even an argument?

He simply gave the example of a 7 day week. Not really that difficult to see.

Are you really that opposed to take one day off in a week??
Is that even a point of argument?



Is this where you convince the reader that God Himself cannot possibly know of any other source of light - other than a fusion reaction 98 million miles from Earth?

Seriously?? that's even an argument against the Word of God?

Please be serious.

=========================================
Each person makes their own choice but as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware - those two doctrines on origins "are not the same" -- Moses was no darwinist.

hint: Sunday at 5:51 PM #264



You can see that when you bend the point that way - it is clear for all of us to see - right?

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Quote "me" when you want to oppose something I said... you are "quoting you" instead.

I said "as the top scholars of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities are aware -- see Sunday at 5:51 PM #264

So the obviously -- those two doctrines on origins (evolutionism vs creation) "are not the same" -- and a we all know - Moses was no darwinist."

I did not quote you saying "all Hebrew scholars".

I prefer facts.



Less creative writing ... more facts please

This is your response to me? Still ignoring my posts? This is pretty much nonsense. As expected. Essentially you repeated the same statements that I had just responded to. How is that a response? For starters:
(1) You didn't address post 307 which I reminded you twice about.
(2) You didn't address the charge of methodological inconsistency, namely the fact that you claim to be somewhat of a literalist but, for example, do not believe that God actually needed rest on the seventh day, or that He did real work in the toilsome, painful, exhausting sense that we work.
(3) You shrugged off the point I made about whether the crystalline firmament is literal text. I sure take it literally. I'll comment more on this in a moment.
(4) You never answered my question. I asked you where the light came from in Genesis 1, in your view, seeing as the sun wasn't set in place until the 4th day.

 

[JAL]

You are free to post a text that speaks of a "crystalline firmament" . I did not find one in my Bible. What Bible do you use??

Sure. I'll get to some of those texts in just a moment.

My reference was to "top scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities" -- and I have a reference for it.... do you?

Sunday at 5:51 PM #264

Sure. Take a look at Paul Seely's two part article on the crystalline firmament.
Paul H. Seely, ―The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqiaà in Gen 1:6-8,‖ Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 53:2 (1991), pp. 227-241; Paul H. Seely, ―The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of ‗The Water above the Firmament‘ in Gen 1:6-8,‖ Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 54:1 (1992), pp. 31-46.

Let's get some perspective here. Your complaint is that men are being influenced by science. In your view, we should look at Scripture divorced from science. You apparently think it is possible to completely purge empirical data from the mind when performing exegesis, which is absolute nonsense. But humoring you for the moment, in your view we should LOOK TO WHAT THE HEWBREW scholars are saying, first and foremost, NOT TO MEN INFLUENCED BY SCIENCE.

And that's why you need to look at Seely's article. As he points out, prior to the RISE OF SCIENCE, all theologians - both Jewish and Christian - held to the doctrine of the crystalline firmament as the LITERAL READING of Genesis 1 - the notion that God anchored the stars in a solid sky of crystalline substance.

That was unanimous among ALL THE HEBREW SCHOLARS for approximately 1500 years. Then science started convincing theologians that the sky is NOT solid, it convinced them that GRAVITY, not solid sky, holds the stars in place.

What these theologians are overlooking is that the two theories are compatible. In my view, gravity is the physical divine Word (who can assume any physical form including crystalline substance) exerting pressure on particles for His purposes, for example to uphold the stars. And scripture DOES teach that the divine Word upholds the stars, at least it seems pretty clear to me.

You talk as though you've never heard of the doctrine of the crystalline firmament. I find that hard to believe. I think it more likely that you don't want to admit that you HAVEN'T been taking Genesis 1 literally on this point. This way you can keep pointing a (hypocritical) finger of accusation against those who don't take Genesis literally.

 

[JAL]

You are free to post a text that speaks of a "crystalline firmament" . I did not find one in my Bible. What Bible do you use??

According to Genesis 1, God formed the earth from liquids called "the waters".Calvin and many others can be cited on this point. Then He inserted a solid wedge into the waters called the firmament and expanded it upwards, for at least two reasons.
(1) To serve as a solid sky into which He then moved the stars into place, anchoring them.
(2) To remove excess waters. Hence the Psalmist referred to "the waters above the heavens". It was commonly believed that God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament). Thus:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened" (Gen 7:11). Later, "The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained" (Gen 8).

It is ALSO commonly understood that Christ's throne rests on some of this crystal. This is confirmed, for example, in Ezekiel's visions. "“And above the [crystal] firmament…was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Eze 1:26, KJV).

Seely's article comments:

"The throne mentioned was apparently sitting on this firmament (cf. Exod 24:10) and the firmament looked like crystal or ice…Even conservative theologians admit the firmament in Ezekiel 1 is solid."

In Exodus, the 70 elders climbed up Mount Sanai, where Christ had descended for a time. What is of interest here is that He descended on a chunk of the crystal and thus they:

"saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made out of sapphire as clear and blue as the sky itself" (Ex 24:10).

And there is more evidence for solid sky, if you need it. So I ask you again, what's your take on the firmament? What is it? And just how literally do you take Genesis ? Do you look only to the Bible alone? Or do you also listen to science?

 

[JAL]

Bob, In post 327 I edited it to add a fourth point - a fourth case where you dodged or deflected instead of addressing my statements.

 

[hedrick]

According to Genesis 1, God formed the earth from liquids called "the waters".Calvin and many others can be cited on this point. Then He inserted a solid wedge into the waters called the firmament and expanded it upwards, for at least two reasons.
(1) To serve as a solid sky into which He then moved the stars into place, anchoring them.
(2) To remove excess waters. Hence the Psalmist referred to "the waters above the heavens". It was commonly believed that God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament). T

I see why Calvin is cited. He is, after all, the greatest Biblical exegete of the Reformation era. However he is cited incorrectly.

Calvin taught that Gen 1 reflected divine accommodation to human understanding, and that parts of it described things as they appeared, not as science understood that they actually were. So, for example, he understood that the moon shone by reflected light from the sun, though he thought the moon had some light of its own. In fact he said that the firmament was space.

“The work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together.” He gives more detail, distinguishing between the atmosphere and actual space.

He also considered the idea of waters above the firmament to be a description of how things appeared, but not scientifically true.

His understanding of "firmament" doesn't agree with current Hebrew scholars: "Moreover, the word רקיע, (rakia,) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins." Currently it is generally understood to be something like a dome. "Heb. rādīaʿ “beaten out, stamped” (as of metal), suggesting a thin sheet stretched out to form the vault of the sky (cf. Dr.)." (Anchor Bible) The Logos commentary says "Ezek 1:22 and Dan 12:3 describe the firmament as shiny. Such comments may suggest that the firmament was viewed as a glass dome over the earth, but since the most vivid descriptions occur in poetic texts, the language may be figurative."

Calvin’s overall approach is to accept what astronomers say, and to regard any differences as due to God’s accommodating the Hebrews’ level of understanding.

 

[JAL]

I see why Calvin is cited. He is, after all, the greatest Biblical exegete of the Reformation era. However he is cited incorrectly.

Calvin taught that Gen 1 reflected divine accommodation to human understanding, and that parts of it described things as they appeared, not as science understood that they actually were. So, for example, he understood that the moon shone by reflected light from the sun, though he thought the moon had some light of its own. In fact he said that the firmament was space.

“The work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together.” He gives more detail, distinguishing between the atmosphere and actual space.

He also considered the idea of waters above the firmament to be a description of how things appeared, but not scientifically true.

His understanding of "firmament" doesn't agree with current Hebrew scholars: "Moreover, the word רקיע, (rakia,) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins." Currently it is generally understood to be something like a dome. "Heb. rādīaʿ “beaten out, stamped” (as of metal), suggesting a thin sheet stretched out to form the vault of the sky (cf. Dr.)." (Anchor Bible) The Logos commentary says "Ezek 1:22 and Dan 12:3 describe the firmament as shiny. Such comments may suggest that the firmament was viewed as a glass dome over the earth, but since the most vivid descriptions occur in poetic texts, the language may be figurative."

Calvin’s overall approach is to accept what astronomers say, and to regard any differences as due to God’s accommodating the Hebrews’ level of understanding.

The issue here isn't what Calvin believed but what is the literal rendering of Genesis. That was the focus of Seely's article. Until the rise of science, everyone believed the literal rendering. And yes the firmament was viewed as a dome over the earth as I described. If it weren't clear like crystal, you'd never see the stars housed within the dome.

You say I cited Calvin incorrectly about the watery origins of the earth? Here's what he said on 2 Pet 3:5: "[Peter] confutes the scoff of the ungodly, even by this, that the world once perished by a deluge of waters, when yet it consisted of waters".

It is difficult (seemingly impossible to me) to read Genesis any other way. Otherwise you end up with a seemingly torturous reading such as:
(1) Verse 2 mentions the waters - and then they serve no purpose? There is no connection to the waters that proceeded to form the seas? Huh?
(2) The stars are hanging in mid-air without being placed in a dome to suspend them? Huh?

 

[hedrick]

.

You say I cited Calvin incorrectly about the watery origins of the earth? Here's what he said on 2 Pet 3:5: "[Peter] confutes the scoff of the ungodly, even by this, that the world once perished by a deluge of waters, when yet it consisted of waters".

No, I objected to citing him in support of a crystalline firmament. As is clear from the whole context, this comment is about Gen 1:2. "The world no doubt had its origin from waters, for Moses calls the chaos from which the earth emerged, waters;"

 

[JAL]

No, I objected to citing him in support of a crystalline firmament. As is clear from the whole context, this comment is about Gen 1:2. "The world no doubt had its origin from waters, for Moses calls the chaos from which the earth emerged, waters;"

Then I'm the one being cited incorrectly. I didn't cite Calvin on the firmament. I was citing him on the waters.

 

[hedrick]

Then I'm the one being cited incorrectly. I didn't cite Calvin on the firmament. I was citing him on the waters.

Here's what you said

God formed the earth from liquids called "the waters".Calvin and many others can be cited on this point. Then He inserted a solid wedge into the waters called the firmament and expanded it upwards, for at least two reasons.
(1) To serve as a solid sky into which He then moved the stars into place, anchoring them.
(2) To remove excess waters. Hence the Psalmist referred to "the waters above the heavens". It was commonly believed that God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament).

If you didn't intend to attribute the crystalline firmament to Calvin, then I misunderstood.

It's also not clear how literally Calvin took waters: "For the same reason he calls it the abyss and waters, since in that mass of matter nothing was solid or stable, nothing distinct."

 

[JAL]

Here's what you said

If you didn't intend to attribute the crystalline firmament to Calvin, then I misunderstood.

Yes, I just affirmed you misunderstood me. And I'm largely to blame. I'm a slow thinker and writer, and I'm usually working at weird hours and thus forced to jump back and forth between a thread and my job. This leads to some unclear writing on my part.

It's also not clear how literally Calvin took waters: "For the same reason he calls it the abyss and waters, since in that mass of matter nothing was solid or stable, nothing distinct."

Right, as I just affirmed, I am not much interested in the cosmogony of post-ancients since I'm not sure how much their views are influenced by science. Again, I was only citing Calvin on behalf of the literal reading of Genesis. Hope this is a little more clear.

 

[hedrick]

Right, as I just affirmed, I am not much interested in the cosmogony of post-ancients since I'm not sure how much their views are influenced by science. Again, I was only citing Calvin on behalf of the literal reading of Genesis. Hope this is a little more clear.

Yeah. I'd say mostly literal. I think his idea that chaos could be called both water and the abyss suggests that water is meant less than literally. But the days and most of the account is taken literally.

In this context, though, things don't start getting interesting until scientific evidence starts diverging from a literal reading of Gen 1. Calvin was around at the very beginning. He could deal with it by saying that the Bible described things as they appeared, but sometimes astronomers knew that wasn't quite true. But none of what astronomers knew involved development of the universe, earth, or species. So it didn't affect the chronology of Gen 1. It did, however, say that the description of sun and moon weren't literally accurate. Calvin did, in fact, take the literal reading, and deal with the conflict with science by saying that the literal reading wasn't intended as a scientific explanation, but as a reference to how things appeared. Just like we say today that the sun rises in the east even though we know the sun doesn't move. We're describing the appearance.

But this no longer works given what we now know about the origin of the universe, the evolution of stars, planets, and species. It's no longer plausible to say that Gen 1 describes how creation appeared. So you can't quite use Calvin's approach.

You can say that Gen 1 represents how the ancients thought creation occurred, and the point wasn't to teach astronomy, but God's responsibility for creation. That's sort of what Calvin said. But is this just an extension of Calvin's concept of accommodation, or is it rejection of the Biblical message? Since we can't ask Calvin, people are going to differ.

Personally I agree that we should take Biblical accounts as their authors would have understood them. I'm not sure just how literally the Hebrews would have taken the 7 days, but saying some of them are billions of years, and there are large gaps between them seems to push it beyond intention of the authors. I'd rather just say that Gen 1 isn't a scientifically accurate account of creation, rather than trying to somehow reshape it to be consistent. The problem with that kind of interpretation is that it can make any passage mean anything.

 

[JAL]

Yeah. I'd say mostly literal. I think his idea that chaos could be called both water and the abyss suggests that water is meant less than literally. But the days and most of the account is taken literally.

I think you and I are spending too much time discussing Calvin's view of the waters. Regardless of Calvin's view on it, 2 Peter 3:5 is a strong indication that the world was formed from waters. In fact it's difficult to see why that verse is included in the NT if it wasn't intended as a confirmation of the Genesis hydrology.

Calvin did, in fact, take the literal reading, and deal with the conflict with science by saying that the literal reading wasn't intended as a scientific explanation, but as a reference to how things appeared. Just like we say today that the sun rises in the east even though we know the sun doesn't move. We're describing the appearance.But this no longer works given what we now know about the origin of the universe, the evolution of stars, planets, and species. It's no longer plausible to say that Gen 1 describes how creation appeared. So you can't quite use Calvin's approach.

I am not totally in disagreement with your assessment, but I think you're overlooking some crucial points, and as a result, I think Genesis is quite a bit more literally true than you suspect. For example, let's talk about chronology. Genesis begins the first Day (as days are defined in my post 307) with "Let there be light". How then did the 2nd day begin? Presumably the same way! Thus even though God arguably said it seven times, it is only mentioned once. Thus every verse that begins with "Let there be..." - we don't know really know what day it was first mentioned, or on how many days it was repeated. So we really don't know all the details of the exact chronology. Literary analysts refer to this technique as a topical arrangement as opposed to a chronological arrangement. It's like me saying, "Today I fed the pets, watered my plants, cooked a meal, drove my kids to school, and did some laundry". You can't deduce chronological order from a topical statement.

This is not to assume that there's zero chronology in Genesis 1. For example not everything done by God begins with the words "Let there be..." It's merely to point out that we have to be cautious, and we shouldn't be quick to prematurely dismiss Genesis as non-literal based on a preconceived chronology.

A second common oversight is simply to underestimate divine ingenuity. Presumably God wanted to create a Bible that was mostly literal text (except in the obviously non-literal styles such as poetry). And yet He was addressing people scientifically naive. How to solve this? By ingenuity. For example since the world was originally conceived as flat, He likely constructed it, originally, as flat and having four corners. And those four corners probably still exist, in one form or another, whether or not we can see them or find them or identify them. Thus when Scripture mentions the four corners of the earth, we shouldn't presume such texts non-literal. Admittedly they are accommodations to human understanding, but nonetheless perfectly literal (or a least potentially so).

As a result of my confidence in God's ingenuity, my hermeneutic entails making every effort to take the text literally - at least the history books, gospels, and the epistles. I'm confident that 99% of those books is literal. But I wouldn't demand so high a standard of prophecy, psalms, proverbs, and the like.

A third common mistake is to be overly judgmental. As you said, even a science-textbook is likely to say that the sun rises in the east. Ok, so having found one non-literal text, should we be quick to dismiss the whole science textbook as non-literal?

I'm not upset with those who take Genesis 1 non-literally. In a modern, highly scientific world, it's perfectly understandable. I think both sides of that debate should respect the other's position.

 

[JAL]

I better make one more edit to that last post...

 

[BobRyan]

According to Genesis 1, God formed the earth from liquids called "the waters".

Well it does not say "liquids called waters" as we both know.

It says this -

Gen:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

So clearly the waters when gathered together are what the Bible calls "seas". Not a big surprise as I am sure we would both agree

Then He inserted a solid wedge into the waters

Praise God no text says "He inserted a solid wedge into the waters". You may consider that detail to be "inconvenient" at this point - but I find it refreshing all the same.

It was commonly believed that God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament).

Praise God that no text says "God flooded the land in Noah's day by opening windows in the heavens (in the crystalline firmament)".

You may consider that detail to be "inconvenient" at this point - but I find it refreshing all the same.


Instead of that - the Bible actually says

Gen 7:"11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

Gen 8: The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.

What causes a cloudburst - Answers
"Cloudburst" is a common term

And here is another easy text to read without getting into silicates, or crystals or bars, or boxes etc

Ezek 1
4 Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. 5 Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man.