Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps that is why they call the King James Bible the "authorized" version. - lol --- (honorable, not factual)We know well in history authorized versions are not always the factual version.
I agree in a general sense. But whether the account is CONSIDERED literal, or figurative is VERY important in THIS culture, in which we are having the discussion.... I'm not trying to remove this idea but rather promote that the goal of the account is far superior, literal or not. the conversation of it being literal or not seems the most unimportant part of the account to me.
Yes, I have identified a few items that need to be addressed. I'm having trouble getting a straight answer. Here they are.I’m starting to think some of them don’t actually know what the Bible says… it makes me wonder..
thanks for sharing.
I was glad to include this perspective of the creation account from you and @tryphena rose when it came up. I hadn't really considered that angle as part of the whole landscape here.Sorry Steve, but I'm going to dig the heels in here.
It's a question of faith. A person can't believe in Darwinian evolution without compromising Biblical teaching. Either we're created or we're an accident from the soup. Same with cosmology, either God created it flat, motionless and enclosed (as per scripture), or as a wacky spacebaal.
Of course, we're reconciliationists, so ultimately everyone will be saved, but it's (in part) the unbelief of Darwinism and heliocentrism that they need saving from.
Does that sound reasonable to you, and if not, could it have something to do with your reluctance to part ways with modern cosmology?
And do we see the "and it was so." after humankind was created? Wasn't that mediate from your perspective?
The flat earth view, which I am not yet comfortable calling "the biblical view" (since there may be an alternative biblical spherical globe view), was news to me. And you may be the first person I have heard call it "the" biblical view.
There is something to that.Well, do you experience rotation and orbit? Do you see curvature? You see the sun, moon and stars moving and assume the earth is moving. But you feel no movement, see no curve. When you see a bird on the wing, do you presume it's stationary and you're moving? Of course not.
All our daily empirical experience is of a flat (with features) fixed earth, is it not?
That's a whole other threadPerhaps that why they call the King James Bible the "authorized" version. - lol --- (honorable, not factual)
On a humorous note, The Message Bible translation/Paraphrase has this to say. (boo)When I became aware of current flat earth belief a few years ago, I watched a video that gave a good presentation of how it works. But I quite honestly didn't care much. It didn't change anything for me. I didn't care if the earth was round or flat. I have the same feelings about the earth and creation either way.
Could you solidify the relationship for us? I can see how some of the elements (no pun intended) of the flat earth model apply, but maybe there is more to it than I recognized.Also it helps with our understanding of scripture and apologetics, we no longer need to make excuses for the Biblical worldview.
Seems immediate to me. Though rather figurative in process. Formed from dust?Genesis 2:7 clearly shows mediate creation of man...
Wasn't it credited to Galileo for "discovering" the earth was "round"? Was flat earth the standard view before that? (seems so) Along with fears of sailing ships off the edge. - lolThe official Catholic position, as I understand it, and notwithstanding their recent apology to Galileo, is ball earth geocentrism. I think most Orthodox are the same, relying on Ptolemaic model. Protestants just go with the flow of modernity.
Well, even our "finite limitations" can read the first sentence in the Bible and understand that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's "heavens", not heaven. (singular)As was noted Genesis 1 needs to be approached with the humble acknowledgement of our finite limitations and too the limitations of the details offered. When were the "heavens and the earth" created... there is no statement that it was Day 1, so if there was an earth what was in the heavens? What was the light on the first day? How does one defend the sixth day with all the activities involved? Should we not give due consideration to Romans 1:20 before jettisoning the discoveries of science? The simple fact is that Genesis perhaps imposes more questions than answers except for "In the Beginning God...".
What do you make of the crescent moon?The official Catholic position, as I understand it, and notwithstanding their recent apology to Galileo, is ball earth geocentrism. I think most Orthodox are the same, relying on Ptolemaic model. Protestants just go with the flow of modernity.
But there's no question that it was uncontroversial doctrine in Jesus' day that the Bible teaches a flat, fixed earth enclosed by a solid firmament. That the sea of glass and fire that John finds himself standing upon when he ascends in the spirit to the throne room in Revelation 15:2. The molten looking glass we're told about in Job 37:18. It's really cool, the Biblical earth, God's creation.
Despite the hue and cry from the 'enlightened Christian' quarters, the only Bible verse remotely supporting a ball earth put forward is Isa 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
A circle is not necessarily a ball. Plus it's tough to stretch a tent around a ball, wouldn't you say? Also no fun using a ball as a footrest, unless perhaps the divine abs need a workout.
Well, even our "finite limitations" can read the first sentence in the Bible and understand that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's "heavens", not heaven. (singular)
And you would cite Romans chapter one to defend the science that denies the creator God? Wow.
I know I pointed this out in a previous post regarding the flat earth model, but I'll reiterate it here since I know my post was lengthy. Also it could be of use in better answering people who try to use Isaiah 40:22 alone against the true Biblical cosmology.Despite the hue and cry from the 'enlightened Christian' quarters, the only Bible verse remotely supporting a ball earth put forward is Isa 40:22:
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
A circle is not necessarily a ball. Plus it's tough to stretch a tent around a ball, wouldn't you say? Also no fun using a ball as a footrest, unless perhaps the divine abs need a workout.
In the creation week with everything else.I thought I wrote "heavens", so when were the "heavens" created, along with the earth?
@Shrewd Manager This scripture seems to have more impact in a spherical model than a flat model.What do you make of the crescent moon?
The shadow on it indicates a spherical form, unless I am missing something here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?