Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And, again, if we choose to paint Genesis as "symbolic" or "poetic", what's to stop anyone from painting the Virgin Birth or Resurrection of Christ similarly? Both series of texts seem to tell a straight-forward and linear narrative. If one can be " poetic", why not the other?

While I actually take it literally (and to be a vision written down as best the writer could without knowing just what many things were he was seeing in the vision(s)), and I also think the days were widely apart in time (and this in turn fits our observations of ages of stars and by extension our sun and also to other evidence of the age of our own planet), I'm willing to admit that it does have a different tone and wording style than parts of the bible that are definitely literal, and is much more like a poem in some ways, like a psalm.

I wouldn't try to argue against anyone taking it as a poem or as allegory or as figurative or even to be a vision given in a stylistic representation of the real, as are several visions in the OT and NT.

None of that really matters past that a person gets the real message -- the wonder and majesty of God's creation and that all that is is His.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

onetruechurch4

Christianity is the only true philosophy.
Jul 8, 2017
59
84
38
New England
✟15,489.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hi onetruechurch,

In reading over your explanations that some of your chosen ECF's have used to separate themselves from the truth, it is also apparent that many of these same explanations would deny us the ability to tell non-christians that Jesus was born of a virgin. After all, everyone knows that the natural consequences of things precludes that a virgin could bear a child. I'm utterly amazed when 'christians' try to explain that we shouldn't be dogmatic in our beliefs when it might shatter some non-christian's understanding of the natural properties of things. Who among us, who understands the natural properties of life on this earth, wouldn't just totally mock anyone trying to tell us that the dead can come back to life?

Just imagine how they're going to react when you tell them that a shadow cast by the sun went backwards some 8-10 feet.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I think this is a straw man argument for a Christian and doesn't address the real issue at hand.

You see the thing is, there is no debate in Christianity over the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ because these are foundational to our faith and has been historically interpreted literally by Christians throughout all ages.

The narratives of the Gospels and the Book of Genesis differ substantially and you can ask Biblical scholars this. The Gospels were written in such as a way as to appear much closer to the kinds of historical biography's you'd find in other parts of the ancient Roman world. The authors of the Gospels, no doubt, had a lot more history in mind when attempting to explain the life and teachings of Jesus.

The Book of Genesis, on the other hand, has more in common with the mythological narratives of its day. A lot of what we find in the Book of Genesis is lifted from other near eastern mythological creation stories, and some scholars almost see it as a monotheistic "parody" of nearby cultures traditions.

The Gospel narratives and the Book of Genesis are two completely different genres. This makes sense, as both were written in very different times to a very different kind of audience. Both are scripture, and contain a lot of truth in them, but they tell us the truth in different ways. After all, the Bible is a theological book, a book about God, not a book about science. The authors of Genesis had no concern with giving a historically and scientifically accurate account of the creation of the world; their concern was emphasizing the role of the one true God, who was not only the God of Israel, but the God of the whole world, and they wanted to place him within human history. I think that attempting to interpret all of Genesis literally is a real dishonor to the original authors themselves who didn't originally intend for that so dogmatically.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EpiscipalMe
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The key word there is "seems."

Indeed, but if we're going to take a poetic approach to Creation, it's also possible to take a poetic approach to what's described in the New Testament. And again, while some Church Fathers may have taken seven days to mean seven epochs or millenia, trying to use that interpretation to fit with what we now call "theistic evolution " still feels like a rather modernist stretch.

Taking the Fathers out of the context of what they meant to fit into an unrelated modern theory meant to puzzle out the diversity of species we see around us, and envisions divergence from a common, tiny ancestor. And which describes events in terms of millions and billions, not thousands of years. Surely that is not what the Fathers had in mind.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What did Jesus teach?
Jesus said that if you didn't believe the words of Moses you won't believe in Him either.
Jesus said that man should live by every word that comes from the mouth of God. What words are these, if not the Scriptures?

The Fourth Commandment, carved by the finger of God on a stone tablet and given to Moses, very specifically re-states that the Lord created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. It is impossible to believe evolution without rejecting this commandment and it's inscription by God. The Ten Commandments are foundational to Christian theology. You can say that Genesis is mere allegory all you want, but the Creator Himself said otherwise.

Christians who proclaim evolution to be true are teaching contrary to the clear written word of God.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Taking the Fathers out of the context of what they meant to fit into an unrelated modern theory meant to puzzle out the diversity of species we see around us, and envisions divergence from a common, tiny ancestor. And which describes events in terms of millions and billions, not thousands of years. Surely that is not what the Fathers had in mind.

But why would the early church fathers have known a thing - one single thing - about geology or biology or chemistry or astronomy or the physics or any of those things that have come together to give us our scientific understanding of how the earth and life on it came to be? God did it - that's the point.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But why would the early church fathers have known a thing - one single thing - about geology or biology or chemistry or astronomy or the physics or any of those things that have come together to give us our scientific understanding of how the earth and life on it came to be? God did it - that's the point.

That's just it, though. Assuming that a "day" in Creation can also mean an epoch is *still* not the same thing as saying that all life evolved from a single, tiny ancestor and eventually, through natural selection, diversified and speicified over billions of years. Darwinian evolution and Old Earth Creation are still not saying the same thing. Nor, imho, are they trying to, or meant to.
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Modern science tries and tries, from time to time, to seek answers that can explain things like the Exodus, Jewish history in general, the miracles of Christ, the Resurrection, and the miraculous in general materially. I would not be so quick to take "science", in general, as a companion to Sacred Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeesh, why do some Christians act like it's sinful to believe that the 6-day creation described is figurative?

Why can't God give commandments because on a figurative illustration? People act like God commanding the seventh day of the week as a day of rest is some sort of "gotcha" for Christians who believe in an older Earth.

Consider this: protestants (I bring them up because they seem much quicker to jump on 6-day-creationism) readily believe that when Jesus called the bread and the wine His blood and body, He was speaking figuratively, and so they obey the command that was (according to then) representative and metaphorical. If Jesus would command us to obey communion, which is supposed to be used metaphorically to remember Him, why, then, is it so hard to believe that God would give a command relating to a metaphorical 6-day-creation?

Or, why couldn't He have told Moses to write about creation in such a way (6 days, 7th He rested) that the need for the Sabbath could be understood by the Israelites?

Anyway, I personally think there are too many questions inherent to Genesis 1 for it to be completely literal. For example, how could there have even been a day in the earthly sense if there was no sun? Why would God create plants before he created the sun (which is completely necessary for plant's survival)?

My point is, if it helps people to believe in God by believing in an old Earth, let them. It isn't about salvation, it's how people are interpreting a passage that is meant to give us spiritual insight about humankind and the rest of the natural world. As long as people believe that God was the one to create it all, what's the harm?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EpiscipalMe
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To be fair, Scripture says that Light existed prior to the creation of the sun. As light (though not neccesarily sun light is needed for plant growth, as anyone who has grown seedlings in a basement under artificial light can attest to) is identified prior to the creation of the sun, plant life could still have existed and thrived with no sun.

I agree that it's not a point on which Orthodoxy or Salvation hinge. But imho it's still important. Science also tends to back abortion, contraception, and population control. Not exclusively, but often.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
To be fair, Scripture says that Light existed prior to the creation of the sun. As light (though not neccesarily sun light is needed for plant growth, as anyone who has grown seedlings in a basement under artificial light can attest to) is identified prior to the creation of the sun, plant life could still have existed and thrived with no sun.

I agree that it's not a point on which Orthodoxy or Salvation hinge. But imho it's still important. Science also tends to back abortion, contraception, and population control. Not exclusively, but often.

I'll agree with this.
 
Upvote 0

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Origen was only declared a heretic for it much later; during his own time it was barely mentioned.

I must correct you respectfully on this one: the Earth is not flat according to the Bible. On the contrary, it is referred to as being round. The four corners mentioned are not implying a flat earth, either. It is best not to propagate these misunderstandings :)

I always understood Genesis describing a flat disc of the Earth endowed by the glass dome of firmament
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,406
60
✟92,791.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Genesis was written literally weather people take it that way or not. The vantage point was the Babylonian captivity, they had lost their homeland, their Temple destroyed, their nationalist Ego dinged, their claims of divine favor humiliated! It was with that mindset that the OT books were finalized, where the Israelites history was exaggerated, traditionalized, forever sealed until the age of enlightenment and scientific inquiry.

The authors and redactors of Genesis were the elite priest class, the intended audience the common Israelite. The motive was to maintain faith in the original promise.

* It worked to hold the faithful community together.

* It also served to confuse future generations with a false expectation of the office and mission of the Son of God, the answer to Abrahams blind faith.

* Connecting the OT to Jesus has further complicated the religion OF Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning onetruechurch,

Thanks for your response to my post. As you readily pointed out in your opening post, this issue was 'heavily debated' in the days that you ascribe to the ECF's. As it is still so today. The main reason for the debate, certainly not the only one, is that science tells us that the literal interpretation cannot possibly be true. As we find out more and more of how the natural properties of the creation work, we are confronted with so very, very many 'facts' that, to our logical mind, tell us that the literal interpretation can't be true.

However, the very same thing can be said of the virgin birth. While it is not much argued among those who attach themselves to the name of christianity, among those who are not, it is a purely laughable idea. The same can be said of the Scriptural account that the sun stood still in the sky over Israel for nearly a full day and that there was a time that a shadow cast by the sun went backwards from its normal direction of movement about 8-10 feet. The very same idea of what we know about the natural properties of water allows that even among christians, and certainly among those who are not, we find many who try to explain that the parting of the Red Sea was not such a really great feat and there is most certainly similar 'heavy debate' regarding the breadth and depth of the flood.

So, you're certainly free to call my argument a 'strawman', but there is ample evidence that there are very, very many things that we are told of in the Scriptures that God has done, that make those who believe in the literal understanding of such events really happening pretty much exactly as the Scriptures describe them, persons to be mocked and derided for their simple and foolish faith.

For me, that's ok and I believe that the Scriptures warn me that such will be the case. For me, I understand from the Scriptures that there are only a 'few' (Jesus' word) who will find the truth of God and accept it and believe it. Only a 'few' who will follow it and find eternal life. In the days of King Ahab, we are given an account of just how few real believers there were in Israel. Of the millions of Jews of that day, God explained to Elijah that He had reserved only 5,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. I doubt honestly, that that percentage is much changed today, if it is even that high. While there were, in the days of King Ahab, millions of people who identified themselves as being God's people, there were a whole lot less that God identified as His remnant of believers.

You are free to cast aspersion on the truth of God. Hundreds of thousands of millions of people have long done so who have gone before you. For me, God was clear in giving the law to support the literal understanding of the beginning of this realm of His creating. For in seven days, God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. By that time, some 2,000 years from that beginning, men knew what a day was. Men understood that seven days were pretty much 24 hour periods that comprised a span of time that was to be called a week.

Finally, and I allow that this is only my understanding and the understanding of a 'few', God isn't beholden to allow that what He has created cannot be manipulated by Him to work outside of the lines of scientific understanding and the normal and natural properties of the things that He has created. God has claimed that He allowed the sun to shine in a land called Goshen, a mere suburb of Egypt, just as normally as it ever did during every day since the sun has existed, and yet for three whole days it was pitch black in all of Egypt. Friend, that's impossible according to all known scientific understanding and certainly doesn't follow the natural properties of sunlight. But God has said that He did it! If God can make the light of the sun hold back from illuminating an entire city while it shone brightly overhead everywhere else around that city, God can make the light of the stars do whatever He desires that it do. He can create the stars to be billions of light years away from our little point in all the universe, yet let their light to be immediately visible to those standing on the earth on the day that they were created. That's just the God that I know and serve.

So, strawman it may be to you. But there are many, many such examples found in the Scriptures of accounts of things happening that those who believe that there is only the natural properties of things to explain such happenings that make the children of God look foolish to those who are not. There are a couple of your ECF's who explain that we shouldn't be so firm in our belief of all that God has done that would make us appear foolish to them. I believe that God's word says otherwise.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, but if we're going to take a poetic approach to Creation, it's also possible to take a poetic approach to what's described in the New Testament.
If you think that it is possible to confuse the literary genre of the Genesis stories with that of the Gospels then by all means guard yourself against it. For me it is not a possibility, so I am not much concerned with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: EpiscipalMe
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
So, you're certainly free to call my argument a 'strawman', but there is ample evidence that there are very, very many things that we are told of in the Scriptures that God has done, that make those who believe in the literal understanding of such events really happening pretty much exactly as the Scriptures describe them, persons to be mocked and derided for their simple and foolish faith.
Mocked and derided? Let me giveyou a parallel example: Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. And you know what? Nobody else cares. As far as I know, they are not much mocked or derided for it and there are few chatrooms like this where the subject is argued.
But what do you suppose would happen if they started lobbying hard for meat to be withdrawn from public school cafeterias on the basis of their understanding of scripture? If some of them started being hostile to other Christians for not going along with them about it? Certainly there would be a strong response, which they might interpret as mocking and derision. What would you expect?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: EpiscipalMe
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
At the opposite extreme,
Augustine viewed creation as instantaneous, that the "days" were just a literary framework.

I think it was some sola scriptura buffs of the reformation, who started taking it very literally!
Before that it was viewed allegorically at some level, although didnt necessarily agree on the form of the allegory.


The early Church heavily debated over how literal Genesis should be taken, but there were some well respected Church fathers who did not take Genesis 100% literal. I think taking Genesis allegorically and accepting theistic evolution is a legitimate theological position, and I'm sure if many of the Church fathers were aware of evolution they'd accept it.

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" - Origen (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" - St. Cyprian (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

"Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" - St. Ambrose of Milan (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" - St. Augustine of Hippo (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" - St. Augustine of Hippo (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I always understood Genesis describing a flat disc of the Earth endowed by the glass dome of firmament

Yep. It's very clear over and over again in the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation. Some scripture passages are below for reference (in addition to those given by Jack in post #18)

I must correct you respectfully on this one: the Earth is not flat according to the Bible. On the contrary, it is referred to as being round. The four corners mentioned are not implying a flat earth, either.

According to dozens of very clear scripture passages, spanning one's entire Bible, the earth is flat, under a hard dome, and the Sun and stars are small lights attached to the inside of the dome. This is a natural way for God to describe it to the ancient Israelites, because it of course looks exactly like that. From before:

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium (under a hard dome)-

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.​

And of course, Biblical scholars, who read it in the original Hebrew, have also known this for a long time.


In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟171,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
If someone wants to take Genesis literally, it's no skin off my back. I do like watching the mental gymnastics of trying to reconcile inconsistencies.

What I strongly object to is the constant claim by literalists that I am not a Christian, or less of a Christian, or no saved because of my belief that large portions of the OT are allegory and/or exaggerations.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Papias
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ChristianFromKazakhstan

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2016
1,585
575
45
ALMATY
✟29,800.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yep. It's very clear over and over again in the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation. Some scripture passages are below for reference (in addition to those given by Jack in post #18)



According to dozens of very clear scripture passages, spanning one's entire Bible, the earth is flat, under a hard dome, and the Sun and stars are small lights attached to the inside of the dome. This is a natural way for God to describe it to the ancient Israelites, because it of course looks exactly like that. From before:

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium (under a hard dome)-

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.​

And of course, Biblical scholars, who read it in the original Hebrew, have also known this for a long time.


In Christ-

Papias

Very true! It's very clear from the Word of God Almighty! Amen!!!
 
Upvote 0