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.
Since I'm a TE, I'll comment on my understanding of the YEC interpretation of the creation account.
(such as those in Psalm 104; Proverbs 8; Job 38-41), they have little worth, since they are written in poetry
So? The Bible nowhere teaches 'geocentrism'. Why is it even an issue except for the fact that God's attention seems to be totally centered on man...on earth?
..."traditional literal interpretation of the the geocentric passages "
Notice he gave you no scripture for this. There is no such teaching in scripture.
If one were to stick to a literal interpretation, then yes, Gen 1 says the stars and such are inside the dome.
That actually shows that my understanding of at least some YECs is correct. Note how you contrasted "poetry" with "history". In fact, there are historical psalms (which are poems), and there are non-historical prose accounts (such as Jesus' parables). Poetry and history are not a dichotomy, but YECs do often seem to view it that way.You destroyed your entire thesis with this one point. Job is not poetry. It/he is history.
Alright let's break down the literal interpretation of this.Yes. But it is difficult to know where those boudaries begin and end.Waters - Highest
Firmament with sun/moon/stars
Ice canopy
Atmosphere
Land/Sea - Lowest
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), 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) or mountain (Matt 4:8), 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.
Geocentrism-
The Bible also describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars or 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, 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.
Papias
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The verse that he referred to said the clay stamped under a seal. You didn't show pictures of clay stamped under a seal, unless I'm completely misunderstanding somethingLook:the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal
[can't post images yet]
Is it really that hard to figure out what God meant by the seals and how the analogy really applies to reality? No, not if one is not bogged down in unbelief by Darwinian dogma.
So you think that the ice was the firmament? Or over the firmament? I'm just trying to fit this view to scripture. The firmament in Genesis is a solid dome (according to Strong's Concordance) and the stars, sun and moon were all placed within it. The waters were above that. I'm just trying to figure out how a solid dome of ice fits into that description.
Just looking for clarification, hopefully you'll keep responding and let me know how an ice dome fits into Genesis 1. I had never heard this ice dome idea before and it's interesting.
"The firmament in Genesis is a solid dome (according to Strong's Concordance) and the stars, sun and moon were all placed within it."
In the last few months of lurking on this forum I noticed a particular theme that seems to be central to the whole issue of origins. It seems it's really all about how we interpret the creation account, and what a "true" Christian is to believe about our origins.
I'm wondering if the YECs can explain how the TEs understand the creation account? Do you think they've brushed it off? Do you think there is a meaning that they see in it? If so what is that meaning? What is necessary that they are missing and how have they dealt with it?
I ask because of comments from YECs where they post scripture for creation, a TE responds by saying they don't see it that way, and the YEC comes back and instead of asking how the TE sees it, they accuse them of not trusting the bible.
I'm of the variety that if someone says they see it differently I want to hear what it is and gain an understading of their position, even if that means I won't agree with them at the end. At least I will know where their heart is at and if they are truly after learning about God's word and living the Christian life.
So please, to both sides, post the understanding you have of the other sides theological views. This question really does go out to TEs and YECs, but I'm most interested in the YEC answer to this.
It just doesn't sound like you're taking genesis literally. It doesn't say there is a firmament above and a firmament below, it says there are waters above and waters below, and the firmament divided them.And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And 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
You see there is more than one firmament; one above and one below. Just where the boundaries are and how thick they are is the question.
It just doesn't sound like you're taking genesis literally. It doesn't say there is a firmament above and a firmament below, it says there are waters above and waters below, and the firmament divided them.
Also, how do you fit the stars in there? They were placed in the firmament and there are waters above the firmament. How does that look exactly? Where are these waters now and what was the point of making it that way? It sounds like the waters were all together then seperated with enough room for the stars. Does that mean water was rapidly zoomed out into space?
Sorry but your literal interpretation is making less and less sense. Do you have a source that goes through it verse by verse and explains it?
The OP opened the topic to both TEs and YECs.[COLOR=#000000 said:Martyr[/color]s44;60903990]Assyrian
I didn't make you the subject of a topic post. Furthermore she didn't ask you, she asked me the questions.
It is just that I have never seen any solid evidence for literalism or creationism.But I always treat seekers and perhaps sincere questioners different than seasoned debaters who are in constant, continual error and won't be corrected by any amount of evidence they are given, scriptural or otherwise. I've read enough of your posts by now to know that of you.
I don't think the Spirit of God is that easily insulted by people trying to understand the meaning of his word. I would be more concerned about the precarious position you put yourself in thinking people who disagree with your interpretation must be insulting the Holy Spirit. At very least you are in danger of closing your heart to the Holy Spirit correcting your own understanding.There is another one, right there, right off the bat. As far as I am concerned such a position is not true and an insult to the Holy Spirit who gave us ONE account and with no confusion about what He said.
Maybe your arguments aren't as sound as you think?But any attempt to convince the likes of you in this matter is an effort in futility.
It is up to you whether you want to respond to my post or not, but I have shown you from scripture that there isn't just ONE account of creation scripture and that scripture itself has different interpretations of the accounts.If you wish to know more of my positions on the issues then you have access to all I have said and whatever I post in the future. I assure you I will cover the bases as it might pertain to what else you said.
That actually shows that my understanding of at least some YECs is correct. Note how you contrasted "poetry" with "history". In fact, there are historical psalms (which are poems), and there are non-historical prose accounts (such as Jesus' parables). Poetry and history are not a dichotomy, but YECs do often seem to view it that way.
Most of the book of Job, including the creation speech of God near the end, is written as poetry. Whether or not it is historical does not change that fact, nor is it dependent on that fact.
However, God also had an even more awesome purpose in all of the creating that He did. His ultimate long range purpose was that what He was creating; a home for man who would then sin and need to be redeemed, was to get to the last page of God's revelation to us. "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."
However, science does not accept that there are miracles. The basic foundation of science is that everything is explainable naturally if you know all of the necessary variables. So, they argue that the earth must be billions of years old because we couldn't see any stars if it were only 6,000 years old. There are, according to the speed of light, no stars close enough, other than our sun that we would be able to see based on that speed. They refuse to allow such statements as, "Well, yes we know that in the natural world that now exists that light travels at this speed, but if we accept that the creation was a miracle of a God who has the power, wisdom, and knowledge to override all such natural events, there is no reason to believe that when God said, 'let there be stars in the heavens', that He didn't cause the light of those stars to be instantly visible all across the universe." Science does not allow for that possibility and from what I know of the power, glory and majesty of God, that's a very real possibility. That when God spoke the universe into existence that stars nearly instantly cluttered the heavens like the grains of sand on a seashore and that the light from each and every one of them was visible from one end of the universe to the other. That's the power, glory, majesty and purpose of our God.
According to Strong's Concordance it means that it's a solid dome. But I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the ice dome issue.All right. Let me back up and clarify the matter if I can.
The word 'firmament' means 'an expanse'. If I confused you by the location of that expanse then I am sorry. I am not beyond making mistakes.
It does clear some things up but it leaves me with one big question: The firmament seperated the waters above from the waters below, and the waters above are the ice dome. But if the stars/sun/moon were placed in the firmament wouldn't that mean that the ice dome would be on the outskirts of the universe? Reading this literally, the "waters above" are above the stars. That is where I'm not understanding what you think this is literally describing.God created the world with waters 'below' and waters 'above'. It is the waters 'above' that made up the ice shield I was talking about. My wording above needs changing. That happens when I am in a hurry and trying to answer so many people in such a short span of time I have. So I apologize.
I hope this answers it.
That's a fair thing to say. The point of this thread was to get people to otherstand what others believe. Since I already somewhat agree with their theology then it makes more sense for me to take the time to try to understand your theology better. Note, I don't necessarily accept evolution, I'm not familiar with the science, I'm just focusing on what scripture says.But don't just question me. Question Assyrian and Papias about the mistakes they have made that I pointed out. If you are going to take me to task on such issues, then do the same with them. Hold them to the fire also.
Contrast this with my particular view of Creation. The heavens and the earth are already formed but the earth is covered in darkness and water. The Spirit of God is hovering over the face of the deep and when God says 'Let there be light'. This light is the glory of God, sometimes refereed to in the Old Testament as the Shekinah (Hebrew: שכינה‎glory of God, described here only as light. Everything in the narrative is from the perspective of the view from the surface of the earth. The sun, moon and stars would latter appear as the clouds were parted and the light reaches 'the surface'.
According to Strong's Concordance it means that it's a solid dome. But I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the ice dome issue.
Light in the entirety of Genesis 1 is the Hebrew word owr
In most of what I've read people who don't hold the creation account as literal history are NOT day/agers. Usually the word yom means just that; "day". It's just not referring to an historical day. (Gladys posted something about his above as well).They generally take the day/age position, which means, the days of creation should not be taken as literal days.
What do you mean that the definition of "humanity" is absurd? Are the following sources unreliable?They are almost oblivious to the New Testament teachings of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 that describe Adam as the 'first man'. The few times I have engaged them on the subject they simply insisted that Adam was another word for humanity, which is absurd.
What do "Darwinian" arguments have to do with a theological discussion?The do not diverge from standard Darwinian arguments with regards to evolution or natural history and they are fiercely opposed to Intelligent Design as well as all Creationist positions.
Even in my short time on this subject I'd say this is catagorically false. NT Wright, CS Lewis, and other have certainly spent a great deal of time defending Christianity.They are not given to Biblical exposition, not apt to make a defense of the credibility of Scripture at any level and rarely mention, let alone debate, theological or doctrinal issues. They are almost unanimous in their silence on the fundamentals of the Christian faith and only seem interested in engaging Creationists on a deeply personal level, criticizing their beliefs with an evangelistic zeal.
Again, my experience has led me to think that this statement of yours is catagorically wrong. But if it is your experience so be it.Frankly, they cannot boast of a single Bible scholar on this board and are grossly indifferent to the Gospel, Nicene Creed or foundational doctrines of the Christian church. They make a standard profession and become indignant if it is so much as suggested that they lack Christian conviction. Honestly, what they believe about the Bible remains a mystery, to me at least, since their sole interest in these discussions is to confront Creationist beliefs.
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?