What geocentrists say . . .

[Vance]

No, it sounds like a poetic refrain common to such use of figurative language.

But I can see that this discussion is really not worth any more of my time. When you have something more than "it is because it sounds that way to me", then call my attention to it. Until then . . .

 

[gluadys]

The bible doesnt teach clearly that the earth is flat or a geocentric universe.

It DOES however, teach very clearly a 6 literal day creation.

That men somewhere down the line read too much into some passages and come up with geocentricity and Discworld and were wrong, does in no way nullify that the bible DOES clearly teach 6 literal days

Sure it says 6 literal days. But the point is, what kind of narration does it set those 6 days in.

The narration is not historical. It is one of the most carefully and powerfully crafted pieces of literature in the bible. There is a reason for every facet of the story: the six days, the sabbath day following, the items created on each of the six days, the crowining creation of humanity and the creation mandate given to them. But important as all these things are as teaching from God, it is not history, nor intended to be history. It is just too literary to be history. History just doesn't fit into this tight literary framework.

You want to see the history of creation, you need to look at geology and evolution. That is where God recorded the actual history.

 

[Vance]

Exactly.

 

[YahwehLove]

Sure it says 6 literal days. But the point is, what kind of narration does it set those 6 days in.

The narration is not historical. It is one of the most carefully and powerfully crafted pieces of literature in the bible. There is a reason for every facet of the story: the six days, the sabbath day following, the items created on each of the six days, the crowining creation of humanity and the creation mandate given to them. But important as all these things are as teaching from God, it is not history, nor intended to be history. It is just too literary to be history. History just doesn't fit into this tight literary framework.

You want to see the history of creation, you need to look at geology and evolution. That is where God recorded the actual history.

Sorry, this is all opinion.
You say it is not historical, I say it is.

 

[YahwehLove]

No, it sounds like a poetic refrain common to such use of figurative language.

But I can see that this discussion is really not worth any more of my time. When you have something more than "it is because it sounds that way to me", then call my attention to it. Until then . . .

how about 'when you have proven common decent call my attention to that"
and yet Im suppose to buy it, right?