What would YOU do?

[Vance]

There has been a lot of discussion lately about how TE’s should not be trying to argue against young earth creationism. That it just damages Christianity to have internal bickering, etc. I would like to propose a hypothetical.

First of all, you must read the page linked here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

http://www.fixedearth.com/Size and Structure Part I.htm


and more generally here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

OK, once you have read these, imagine the following.

Let’s say that a number of these geocentric ministries begin to gain converts among the fundamentalist Christian groups. There are seminars and books and pretty soon half of the American Christian community believes that the Scripture plainly teaches that the sun and the stars revolve around a fixed earth. They are out there making the following statements:

1. Heliocentrism is directly contrary to Scripture, if it is true, Scripture can not be trusted. And if you can’t trust it when it teaches geocentrism, then why would you trust it for the Gospels?

2. A belief in heliocentrism is simply accepting Man’s fallible science over God’s Word. It shows a lack of faith and a lack of trust in God. It is compromising with the World in order to accommodate man’s fallible scientific understanding.

3. The scientific belief in heliocentrism is based on a bunch of assumptions and theories and just makes no sense. It takes more faith to believe that the earth is spinning and revolves around the sun than to accept the Bible!

And then they go on to present a bunch of psuedo-science to support their propositions, of the type indicated on the sites linked above. They also provide lots of theological arguments (again, see the sites), they say that if the earth is not the center of God’s Creation as it seems to be in Genesis 1, then we are just another one of billions of planets! Our sun is just one of billions in our galaxy alone, much less the universe. This wholly undermines the clear teaching of Scripture that this planet earth was the central stage for God’s Creation. If we accept these cosmological assertions by scientists, this will lead to a disbelief in God’s role in creation and Man’s special relationship, etc, etc.

They make a persuasive call to all Christians to get back to the truths of Scripture, to the beliefs that all Christians had before the Copernican Revolution, which was just Man’s fallible attempt to understand things without God, an atheistic philosophy intent on undermining God’s Word!

Now, pretty soon, most Christians in the United States are buying into this. They are teaching from their pulpits and in their Sunday School classes that Man’s science is wrong, and the sun really revolves around a fixed earth. That the stars also revolve around the earth, and that this is all confirmed in Scripture. This becomes a pervasive Christian theological position and kids are growing up being taught this and that heliocentrism is an atheistic concept in opposition to God’s Word.

Next, they begin to petition to have geocentrism taught in the schools. They say that their beliefs about origins should have equal time with the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. They want science classes to teach that some believes the earth spins, while some believe it is fixed. They want THEIR scientific propositions taught as well as standard science. And, amazingly, you begin to see it happening. There are teachers in the Bible Belt actually being required to present the geocentric model as an alternative!

Now, you don’t believe any of this. You believe just as you do right now, you accept heliocentrism because you interpret Scripture in a way that does not conflict with heliocentrism and you believe the evidence from the scientific community is persuasive. But when you go and attempt to witness, you come across more and more non-Christians who say “why should I believe in a Bible that teaches something as idiotic as the sun revolving around the earth?!” You try to explain that those geocentric Christians are wrong. They resist because every Christian they have ever met believes this nonsense. Sometimes you can get through, sometimes you can’t.

Next, you are a youth and college worker at your church. More and more, you are having kids coming up to you saying “hey, I have studying up on this heliocentrism stuff, and it sounds like it is probably correct! The evidence really DOES indicate that the earth revolves around the sun, but what does that mean for Scripture. Is it just wrong? How do I know what to believe in the Bible and what not?” You go through and show them how all those verses can be read non-literally and that they need not accept geocentrism to believe in Scripture. You explain to them that they CAN accept heliocentrism and be a Christian.

You see that these geocentrist ministries are building up to make an even bigger push. They are on the radio, even on TV! You see non-Christians denying a religion that is teaching scientific nonsense. You see our youth facing crises of faith over this issue. You see Christianity becoming associated with scientific propositions that are just wrong and undermining the perceived legitimacy of Christianity overall.

Whenever you talk to these Christian geocentrists, and try to explain the interpretive problems with their position and/or explain the science, they eventually just say that you trusting man’s word over God’s Word, that you just need to accept Scripture the way it is written, that you just don’t have enough faith and trust in God.

What would you do? Would you just sit back and let it all happen? Would you just talk to these geocentrists in private and ask them to stop doing what they are doing, even though you could not possibly stop all these ministries from presenting geocentrism. Would you speak out publically so in an effort to let everyone know that not all Christians are geocentrists?

Now a couple of other thoughts. It is a common YEC theme that we should not trust man’s knowledge or wisdom, that God uses the foolish, etc, etc. If you ever try to point out that their science just doesn’t make sense, they say that God’s truth will always look foolish to man. Well, how about the Biblical interpretation and scientific propositions stated in the geocentric sites linked above? Do you not think that they are wrong, almost embarrassingly wrong? Is that the image of Christianity that we want to present to the non-Christian? Not that we should be worried about pleasing the world, but can you not see that this type of presentation of science and theology would be damaging to the presentation of the Gospel?

Well, I can tell you that the non-Christian who knows anything at all about these issues views YEC’ism EXACTLY the same way. YEC’ism looks and sounds just as scientifically ignorant and backward. And us theistic evolutionists view YEC’ism as a movement EXACTLY as YEC’s view geocentrism as a movement.

 

[GodSaves]

What is really interesting is that so many fail to see the parallelism of this:

Geocentrists reading of God's Word:
Sun Rise Sun Set = sun revolved around the earth

Theistic Evolutionists reading of God's Word:
God created the universe and all that is in it in six days = God created by throwing some ingredients together and it took God about 4.6 billion years.

And then the young earth creationists are scrutinized for reading God's Word as:
God created the universe and all that is in it in six days = God created the universe and all that is in it in six days.

The latter group keeps God's Word exactly a written. The former two groups have changed God's Word to mean something else.

I guess this is a really hard thing to see for so many people. You want to say that geocentrists and yec read God's Word literally. Yet if you look at the verses and look at what geocentrists say, they are not taking God's Word literally. They are adding to it and changing it to say something else. Theistic evolutionists do the same.
And yet you want to draw a comparison of geocentrists and young earthers.

Let me ask you some very simple questions:

Does the Bible say 'God created in six days?' Are the words six days used in the Bible?

Does the Bible say 'sun revolves around the earth?' Are the those words used in the Bible?

The Bible does say in six days God created everything.
The Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth.
The Bible does not say God had man evolve.

You want to argue that geocentrists and young earthers are the similiar but you are making it more obvious that theistic evolutionists and geocentrists are much more alike in their interpretation of the Bible. Both alter the Word of God so that it can means something else, for whatever reason. Young earthers have yet to alter God creating in six days to mean something other then God created in six days. Theistic evolutionists alter it to mean 4.6 billion years by evolution, and geocentrists alter sun rise to mean sun revolves around the earth.

I realize you don't want to see the parallelism between the two. But just take a look at what I started this post with and you can see who alters God's Words and who does not.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

So, you are refusing to answer the question? This is a bad habit of yours.

What would you do?

The rest of your post is really a pretty pathetic attempt to avoid the obvious parallels between the geocentrism and YEC'ism. The good news is that anyone coming to these forums and reading your posts can see this immediately.

As for geocentrists, they are just taking the literal text as it is written. If it says the SUN STOPPED, then that means the SUN STOPPED, which means it must have been moving. Otherwise, God would have said He stopped the earth so that the sun would stand still in the sky. Just a plain, literal reading. (I notice you only focus on their "sun rising and setting" verses and ignore the rest, another bad habit of YEC's).

When it says the earth is "fixed" and unmovable, they take this at face value. It is all of us (YEC included) who disagree with them who are adding in something: proper interpretation.

So, no, you don't take God's Word exactly as written, at its plainest and simplest meaning, and the fact that you have to resort to such an obvious mistatement just shows the weakness of the YEC position.

As for your questions: Yes, the words six days are used. And the words the sun stopped moving are used.

But no, the Bible does not say that God created in a literal six days any more than God said the Sun had been literally moving and He stopped it.

Both of these over-literal readings are incorrect.

The geocentrist is not seeing that God is using the language most effective to convey His meaning that the sun stopped in relation to the earth.

The YEC is not seeing that God is using the language most effective to convey His design of all that is in the universe, along with important spiritual and theological truths and practical frameworks for life.

 

[Ben_Hur]

It is a common YEC theme that we should not trust man’s knowledge or wisdom,

To sort of answer the question of the OP and to share a little bit of my struggle with this, I'd like to focus on this statement.

After joining these forums a while back as a YEC and almost immediately going to the C&E forums and promptly getting my head handed to me by knowlegeable evolutionists, I began to struggle with my faith. But I realized that even though I had some wrong YEC views, God was constant. God was still there. I knew I should not put my faith in the men that taught me YEC'ism, but God. So knowing that we should not trust man's knowledge or wisdom, was what showed me that trusting man's knowledge was what got me into YEC in the first place. That is, man's interpretation of the scripture. That is, man's theory of what the scripture was telling me.

So what would I do? I would trust God's knowledge over man's. And God has revealed himself through his creation AND the Bible. Even the YEC's say that (intelligent design, etc.). He prefers order. He prefers that everything fit together juuuust right. Nothing superfluous or out of place. If I read the Bible and thought it was telling me the sky was green, then I look out the window and see a blue sky, then I've not understood exactly what the Bible was saying. Both need to make sense with one another, because BOTH are from God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To sort of answer the question of the OP and to share a little bit of my struggle with this, I'd like to focus on this statement.

After joining these forums a while back as a YEC and almost immediately going to the C&E forums and promptly getting my head handed to me by knowlegeable evolutionists, I began to struggle with my faith. But I realized that even though I had some wrong YEC views, God was constant. God was still there. I knew I should not put my faith in the men that taught me YEC'ism, but God. So knowing that we should not trust man's knowledge or wisdom, was what showed me that trusting man's knowledge was what got me into YEC in the first place. That is, man's interpretation of the scripture. That is, man's theory of what the scripture was telling me.

So what would I do? I would trust God's knowledge over man's. And God has revealed himself through his creation AND the Bible. Even the YEC's say that (intelligent design, etc.). He prefers order. He prefers that everything fit together juuuust right. Nothing superfluous or out of place. If I read the Bible and thought it was telling me the sky was green, then I look out the window and see a blue sky, then I've not understood exactly what the Bible was saying. Both need to make sense with one another, because BOTH are from God.

i can sympathize with your struggles.
the parallelness of the YEC on one hand and the materialist evolutionists on the other is very striking, as you note.
There is great value in following up your observations.

What i would like to do is point you to two big ideas to incorporate into your analysis.

The first is the notion o f sufficiency. Sometimes i describe this as 'nothing butism'. The materialist would claim that the universe is nothing but matter in motion, trying to make this a scientific claim when in fact it is a metaphysical notion. Likewise the YEC claim the sufficiency of Scripture in a surprising way---nothing but Scripture is required, in fact, the modification of your interpretation by outside forces is unwelcome. This is not either Sola Scriptura or the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, but that is for another thread. The essential element is each claim exclusive sufficiency for their 'area of expertise', or as the metaphor of the 2 books would label it, for the reading of 'their' book. But both books are revelatory of God, and neither is sufficient without the other. Even together they are not really sufficient, for the Spirit is necessary for a proper reading of Scripture, (probably for rightly interpreting nature as well).

The other important notion is the radical contingency of the universe. It is not necessary, nor was it's history necessary. Unlike the ancient Greeks, we understand that to plumb the depths of the universe we must get out of the theorizing chair and look and discover the things God actually did. But the universe reflects the character and some of the attributes of God: rationality in particular. When we read the book of nature we learn this things, whether we attribute them to God or to idols, we learn.

Taking the analysis you begin in your first paragraph and extend the parallelness between YECist and materialist, adding each's notion of sufficiency and not-contingent (God had to create in 6 days in this order, the universe is necessary and miracles are impossible) you can build a decent argument that they are actually mirror images of each other. Each solves the 'reading of the two books' problems by denying the value of the other's book. YEC deny the essentialness of the history of the universe to help us interpret the Scriptures, the materialist denies the value of a Scriptural world view to inform him that the universe is not self-contained and in fact is reliant moment by moment on God for its preservation. By reducing this active tension that requires us to read both books revelatory of God, each looses the anchor that the other book provides. Creation and science anchor our interpretation of Scripture to the real world, Scripture shows use that the material is not essential, not central to our lives, God is.

Any how, this is long enough, i'd congratulate you on your studies and insights as expressed above. It is a hard road to travel and my experience is there are not even many travellers, let alone those who can see those crucial parallels. nice going.

 

[Remus]

What is really interesting is that so many fail to see the parallelism of this:

Geocentrists reading of God's Word:
Sun Rise Sun Set = sun revolved around the earth

Theistic Evolutionists reading of God's Word:
God created the universe and all that is in it in six days = God created by throwing some ingredients together and it took God about 4.6 billion years.

And then the young earth creationists are scrutinized for reading God's Word as:
God created the universe and all that is in it in six days = God created the universe and all that is in it in six days.

Well said.

 

[TwinCrier]

To answer the OP, I would never think to tell anyone to stop preaching what they believe. I would share my interpretation of scripture if they were open to debate. Perhaps I would see that they are right, who knows.

If I read the Bible and thought it was telling me the sky was green, then I look out the window and see a blue sky, then I've not understood exactly what the Bible was saying. Both need to make sense with one another, because BOTH are from God.

If I were in this scenerio, I would conclude that blue is really green or that I suffer from color-blindness or lastly, that the bible is not God's word.

 

[Vance]

rmwilliams, I am going to have to find someone else to give reputation points to so that I will stop getting that "spread it around" message! :0)

 

[Ben_Hur]

If I were in this scenerio, I would conclude that blue is really green or that I suffer from color-blindness or lastly, that the bible is not God's word.

It would have been better if my analogy had not involved something as arbitrary as the naming of a color.

But I think I made my point, which you chose to disregard.

 

[Vance]

I think the point comes down to the simple fact that if we were alive in 1550 we would be Biblical geocentrists, and would believe that the Scripture plainly teaches that the sun revolves around the earth. To deny this would claim that we would have been wiser in this regard than the entire Catholic Church, Martin Luther and Calvin. But now we are ALL heliocentrists and have changed our reading of Scripture. Why? Not because we are just better at Scriptural exegesis. No, it is because we have accepted the evidence of the natural universe as presented by science.

So, Twincrier HAS,as we all have, done the equivalent of accepting that the sky is blue and changed our reading of Scripture accordingly.

 

[gluadys]

To sort of answer the question of the OP and to share a little bit of my struggle with this, I'd like to focus on this statement.

After joining these forums a while back as a YEC and almost immediately going to the C&E forums and promptly getting my head handed to me by knowlegeable evolutionists, I began to struggle with my faith. But I realized that even though I had some wrong YEC views, God was constant. God was still there. I knew I should not put my faith in the men that taught me YEC'ism, but God. So knowing that we should not trust man's knowledge or wisdom, was what showed me that trusting man's knowledge was what got me into YEC in the first place. That is, man's interpretation of the scripture. That is, man's theory of what the scripture was telling me.

So what would I do? I would trust God's knowledge over man's. And God has revealed himself through his creation AND the Bible. Even the YEC's say that (intelligent design, etc.). He prefers order. He prefers that everything fit together juuuust right. Nothing superfluous or out of place. If I read the Bible and thought it was telling me the sky was green, then I look out the window and see a blue sky, then I've not understood exactly what the Bible was saying. Both need to make sense with one another, because BOTH are from God.

This is great to hear Ben Hur. Like you, when I first discovered what the scientific theory of evolution really said and realized it had to be true, I couldn't have answered a single question about how to reconcile the truth of creation with the truth of scripture.

But I put my trust in God. Never for one nanosecond did it occur to me that evolution meant atheism. I knew that God is true and anything true MUST come from God, even if we don't understand all the ins and outs of how that could be.

 

[TwinCrier]

It would have been better if my analogy had not involved something as arbitrary as the naming of a color.

But I think I made my point, which you chose to disregard.

That is an unfair accusation. I didn't disregard your point at all. I simply have a different method of dealing with evidence that appears to contridict scripture and I described such in my post. It has been repeatedly asked why YEC's question or negate the faith of TE's, but I think a better question is, Why do you care what we think about your faith? I'm sure you feel good about your beliefs as do I. You think I'm wrong, and vice-versa. Such is life. Take comfort in the fact that someday the truth will be known to all.

 

[Vance]

That is an unfair accusation. I didn't disregard your point at all. I simply have a different method of dealing with evidence that appears to contridict scripture and I described such in my post. It has been repeatedly asked why YEC's question or negate the faith of TE's, but I think a better question is, Why do you care what we think about your faith? I'm sure you feel good about your beliefs as do I. You think I'm wrong, and vice-versa. Such is life. Take comfort in the fact that someday the truth will be known to all.

I think this is very true, and on an individual level, it would not bother me at all. But because such statements are made so often by YEC's (even if on this forum they try hard to avoid it lately), that it can create a perception in the mind of our Christian youth of TE's as "worldly Christians" with less faith, as compromising Christians who put more faith in Man than God, etc. This perception can be very damaging to those youth when they come to realize that YEC'ism is not true. Then they are forced to choose between abandoning their faith or becoming "that type" of Christian who has been so reviled to them. Not good.

 

[GodSaves]

So, you are refusing to answer the question? This is a bad habit of yours.

What would you do?

The rest of your post is really a pretty pathetic attempt to avoid the obvious parallels between the geocentrism and YEC'ism. The good news is that anyone coming to these forums and reading your posts can see this immediately.

I answered your question, you didn't like how I answered. I apologize you don't like my answers but that was my answer.

Thank you for the compliment of calling my post a pathetic attempt. Quite kind of you.

As for geocentrists, they are just taking the literal text as it is written. If it says the SUN STOPPED, then that means the SUN STOPPED, which means it must have been moving. Otherwise, God would have said He stopped the earth so that the sun would stand still in the sky. Just a plain, literal reading. (I notice you only focus on their "sun rising and setting" verses and ignore the rest, another bad habit of YEC's).

So you believe the sun doesn't move? Last time I checked science said the sun moves in rotation of the milky way galaxy.

Would you like me to focus on the sun stopped part now? Ok.

Geocentrists read and say it means:
The sun stopped = the sun revolves around the earth

Theistic evolutionists read and say it means:
God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being = Adam evolved after billions of years and then when Adam became a man God gave Him a spirit.

Young earthers read and say it means:
God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being = God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being

At the very least geocentrists don't try and change God's Word. They read it and think, well this is true so.... they come up with their conclusion.

Theistic evolutionists say well this is truth but not true, so let us just keep in mind that God is the creator. We will let our scientists tell us the rest.

Young earthers say well the Bible is truth and true. Let us not change anything and read it how it reads.

When it says the earth is "fixed" and unmovable, they take this at face value. It is all of us (YEC included) who disagree with them who are adding in something: proper interpretation.

Verses please.

So, no, you don't take God's Word exactly as written, at its plainest and simplest meaning, and the fact that you have to resort to such an obvious mistatement just shows the weakness of the YEC position.

You are right, I am weak. If I wasn't I wouldn't be a sinner.

As for your questions: Yes, the words six days are used. And the words the sun stopped moving are used.

Alright you admit that the Bible talks about creation in six days.

But no, the Bible does not say that God created in a literal six days any more than God said the Sun had been literally moving and He stopped it.

Where does the Bible say it isn't literal?

Both of these over-literal readings are incorrect.

By who's authority?

The geocentrist is not seeing that God is using the language most effective to convey His meaning that the sun stopped in relation to the earth.

The YEC is not seeing that God is using the language most effective to convey His design of all that is in the universe, along with important spiritual and theological truths and practical frameworks for life.

Can you tell me what language God uses that is the most effective? I guess God must have told you if you know.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[Vance]

I answered your question, you didn't like how I answered. I apologize you don't like my answers but that was my answer.

But no, you did not answer the question, you made comments. I asked what you would do if that situation arose. That is a specific question.

So you believe the sun doesn't move? Last time I checked science said the sun moves in rotation of the milky way galaxy.

True, but it does not move in relation to the earth, which is the point at issue. The geocentrist believe it moves in relation to the earth due to an over-literal reading of Scripture.

Would you like me to focus on the sun stopped part now? Ok.

Geocentrists read and say it means:
The sun stopped = the sun revolves around the earth

Theistic evolutionists read and say it means:
God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being = Adam evolved after billions of years and then when Adam became a man God gave Him a spirit.

Young earthers read and say it means:
God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being = God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils and he become a living being

Right, I think the TE position is right on this one, and that the YEC position can't be right be right because God does not have breath. So, this MUST be figurative for something else.

At the very least geocentrists don't try and change God's Word. They read it and think, well this is true so.... they come up with their conclusion.

Theistic evolutionists say well this is truth but not true, so let us just keep in mind that God is the creator. We will let our scientists tell us the rest.

No, we say it is all truth, but not historically literal. And no, we don't JUST keep in mind that God is the creator, that is just one of the many truths He provides in Genesis 1 and 2. But yes, we will have to rely upon our scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, to tell us the details about how and when God created.,to the extent they can

Young earthers say well the Bible is truth and true. Let us not change anything and read it how it reads.

Other than where you read it figuratively. You obviously don't read the sun stopping as the sun literally stopping. You don't read the earth being fixed and unmovable as the earth really being fixed and not moving.

Verses please.

Already provided elsewhere.

You are right, I am weak. If I wasn't I wouldn't be a sinner.

Yes, but sinners can have strong arguments or weak arguments.

Alright you admit that the Bible talks about creation in six days.

No, I said the words "six days" are used. I did not say that the Bible talks about creation in six days. It does not any more than the Bible talks about the sun literally stopping.

Where does the Bible say it isn't literal?

So, you believe that the sun was literally moving (rather than the earth) and that God stopped the sun from moving? That is, without doubt, the plain and simple reading of the text. And it was how that text was interpreted for 1500 years. It is how YOU would interpret it if you lived in 1550.

By who's authority?

This was a statement of my belief. By who's authority do you read the sun stopping NOT to mean that the sun was actually moving itself and God stopped it? By what authority do you read it to mean the perception of movement?

Can you tell me what language God uses that is the most effective? I guess God must have told you if you know.

The language God uses is always the most effective, of course.

Now, how about an answer to the question in the OP?

If that phenomenon had developed, and geocentrism was running rampant and damaging the Christian message, what would you do about it?

 

[GodSaves]

But no, you did not answer the question, you made comments. I asked what you would do if that situation arose. That is a specific question.

No, I believe I answered, you wanted a yes or no strictly, I didn't comply. I apologize, but what I gave you was my answer.

True, but it does not move in relation to the earth, which is the point at issue. The geocentrist believe it moves in relation to the earth due to an over-literal reading of Scripture.

When standing here on earth, using only your eyes, does the earth look like it is moving or the sun?

Right, I think the TE position is right on this one, and that the YEC position can't be right be right because God does not have breath. So, this MUST be figurative for something else.

Here is an example I have a hard time with: God does not.... or cannot..... You have specifically said young earthers put God in a box because we believe what is written in the Bible. Yet here and in other posts you have talked about God not having, God cannot, God does not. Why do you limit God? How do you know God doesn't have breath? I believe God can do anything He wishes, even the impossible. I will not limit God by saying He cannot, unable, or does not have.

This thinking, science has developed in you. You assume God must exist in His own created logic. You assume God is bound by what He has created. God is beyond all, all powerful, all knowing, able to do all, even the impossible, and that my friend is a fact not a theory. Careful here when you began to doubt what God can or cannot do, because our minds cannot conceive God much less understand God's mind.

No, we say it is all truth, but not historically literal. And no, we don't JUST keep in mind that God is the creator, that is just one of the many truths He provides in Genesis 1 and 2. But yes, we will have to rely upon our scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, to tell us the details about how and when God created.,to the extent they can


Other than where you read it figuratively. You obviously don't read the sun stopping as the sun literally stopping. You don't read the earth being fixed and unmovable as the earth really being fixed and not moving.

Vance you must really stop thinking for me. I believe the sun stopped and I believe God can do it. I also believe we don't understand how, but who cares God said it, God did it, I believe, do you?

Already provided elsewhere.

Well thank you for providing them, can you point me where they are, so we are on the same page?

Yes, but sinners can have strong arguments or weak arguments.

True, but what is considered strong? What is considered conclusive evidence to provide a strong case? The strongest case I know of is God's Word and it tells me how He created. I believe Him, simple fact.

No, I said the words "six days" are used. I did not say that the Bible talks about creation in six days. It does not any more than the Bible talks about the sun literally stopping.

Oh, so the Bible doesn't say God created everything in six days? Are you saying the verses in the Bible that say this are not really there?

So, you believe that the sun was literally moving (rather than the earth) and that God stopped the sun from moving? That is, without doubt, the plain and simple reading of the text. And it was how that text was interpreted for 1500 years. It is how YOU would interpret it if you lived in 1550.

So again the sun doesn't move at all? And when God stopped the sun, did He actually stop the sun itself or did He stop everything that was in motion in space so the sun would stop? And if that is how He did it, then the earth too would have stopped. The point is you and I don't know how He did it, we just know He did. Just because the earth is not said in the verse that it stopped, doesn't mean it didn't stop.

This was a statement of my belief. By who's authority do you read the sun stopping NOT to mean that the sun was actually moving itself and God stopped it? By what authority do you read it to mean the perception of movement?

God's authority. It says the sun stopped, who am I to question God.
Let me ask you a far greater question: Who are you to question God?

If you have children, do you teach them to question everything you do and say?

The language God uses is always the most effective, of course.

Now, how about an answer to the question in the OP?

If that phenomenon had developed, and geocentrism was running rampant and damaging the Christian message, what would you do about it?

Ah, I thought God told you what language was the best and not just a general statement.

What is the Christian message Vance? Is it geocentrism? Is it evolution? Is it creationism? Is it the green plant? Is it dirt of earth?

No, the Christian message is Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind. Through Jesus' Christ blood we are saved. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the gate, and the narrow road is the road to salvation. Sin came into the world through one man, and one man gave redemption to all who believe.

The belief of the sun revolving around the earth has damaged these teachings? Has believing the earth is young, was created in six days, God created Adam and through Adam's disobedience sin came into the world, damaged these teachings? Or maybe believing death/pain/suffering, man evolving not created, Adam is fictious, sin was just there, has damaged these teachings. This thought has confused how sin came into the world, it has confused why Christ did what He did, and how it all started.

You wanna bring up young earthers has the ones who are destroying the Christian faith, let me let you in on something. Mormons are teaching their students that the one way to discredit Christianity is through the belief that Adam, Eve, Moses, and creation are all just a myth. And you are apart of this helping in this cause of the Mormons. I know you have not meant to, but it is happening.

You want to know something very precious and often overlooked? Jesus said have the faith of a child. The child doesn't question the Father, the child believe what the Father says. The child doesn't believe the Father only speaks truth, but believes the Father speaks truth and true. The child doesn't question the Father, but believes exactly what the Father tells the child. The child may not even understand, but the child knows that he/she doesn't have to because the Father knows. The child believes the Father knows best and does whatever the Father asks.

This world says question everything. God says question everything from the world, but there is no need to question Him. God is always right, not just in truth but in everything that is true. God didn't move His people to write something that could only be understood by the phd's of the world. God moved His people to write something everyone can understand, even a child.

Jesus taught many hard teachings and as a result many turned and walked away. Notice though that Jesus did not water down His teachings, nor did He change them as to make a ramp so more souls could be saved. Jesus didn't call this the narrow path for nothing, and Jesus didn't say we would be persecuted as only kidding. It is a tough teaching, but Jesus said it in His Word and instructed us to have the faith of a child. And a child believes just because the Father said so.

That is really all I have to say Vance. You can continue on your ramp building, road widening ministry. I wish you would really take some time out and read through Scripture and pray seriously.

Take Care in all you do Vance and God Bless you.

 

[TwinCrier]

I think this is very true, and on an individual level, it would not bother me at all. But because such statements are made so often by YEC's (even if on this forum they try hard to avoid it lately), that it can create a perception in the mind of our Christian youth of TE's as "worldly Christians" with less faith, as compromising Christians who put more faith in Man than God, etc. This perception can be very damaging to those youth when they come to realize that YEC'ism is not true. Then they are forced to choose between abandoning their faith or becoming "that type" of Christian who has been so reviled to them. Not good.

I've encountered Christians on this board who feel drinking, cussing and premarital sex isn't sin. They get accused of compromise as well. That's just what happenes when you vary from traditional Christian doctrine or theology. You know the saying, you can't please all the people all the time. Maybe you could accept this as persecution that all Christians encounter so you don't have to post so much about how it bothers you. It may make your post seem more authoritive without the whining.

 

[Vance]

No, I believe I answered, you wanted a yes or no strictly, I didn't comply. I apologize, but what I gave you was my answer.

So, a response which refuses to answer the question is an "answer". I guess that says a lot. I asked what you would do, you have not said what you would do. Elsewhere I asked for a simple yes or no, you refuse to provide it. This speaks volumes.

When standing here on earth, using only your eyes, does the earth look like it is moving or the sun?

Right, this is the correct interpretation of these Scriptures, and why they are not speaking falsely. But the plain, literal reading is still that the sun was the one moving and NOT the earth. That this is the plainest and most straightforward reading is proven by the fact that EVERYONE who did not have scientific knowledge of what actually moves believed that this very verse proved the sun was the mover and NOT the earth. Your scientific knowledge allows you to discern the proper reading.

Here is an example I have a hard time with: God does not.... or cannot..... You have specifically said young earthers put God in a box because we believe what is written in the Bible. Yet here and in other posts you have talked about God not having, God cannot, God does not. Why do you limit God? How do you know God doesn't have breath? I believe God can do anything He wishes, even the impossible. I will not limit God by saying He cannot, unable, or does not have.

Oh, yes, God can do anything, we all agree with that. But what is more likely: that God, a spirit, took on human physical characteristics so that He could use actual "breath" or that by "breath" He meant something different? We have a phrase "God breathed", and so there are two possible readings: God adopted human physiology in order to accomplish this, or this phrase is symbolic for an Act of God which we can not understand but which is best described to us a "breathing", but which was not literally breathing.

This thinking, science has developed in you. You assume God must exist in His own created logic. You assume God is bound by what He has created. God is beyond all, all powerful, all knowing, able to do all, even the impossible, and that my friend is a fact not a theory. Careful here when you began to doubt what God can or cannot do, because our minds cannot conceive God much less understand God's mind.

Oh, no, God can do anything. But what DID God do? You read it literally, and thus believe that God MUST have created according to the literal description (and will adopt convoluted work-arounds when this does not make sense). I, on the other hand, say that the text could be literal or non-literal and God can do whatever He likes. I will then accept whatever the evidence shows to be true.

Vance you must really stop thinking for me. I believe the sun stopped and I believe God can do it. I also believe we don't understand how, but who cares God said it, God did it, I believe, do you?

Right!!! Now, apply this to Genesis 1 and creation!

Well thank you for providing them, can you point me where they are, so we are on the same page?

Why bother now, since you say below that you will not be responding. But if you are interested, you will have run across them when you read the geocentrism pages I pointed you to. I assume you read through those.

True, but what is considered strong? What is considered conclusive evidence to provide a strong case? The strongest case I know of is God's Word and it tells me how He created. I believe Him, simple fact.

Right, you think your choice of a literal interpretation (and it IS a choice since there is more than one possible interpretation) is a better guide to truth than all the evidence from God's creation itself. I am not so confident of my own human abilities. Before I learned anything about evolution and the age of the earth, I thought it was almost assured that Genesis 1 and 2 were not meant to be read literally. I thus was, in my own human analysis (as guided by the Spirit), tentatively choosing one interpretation over another. But if, when I had studied the scientific realities, it became clear that the evidence from the natural world lined up with a literal reading I WOULD HAVE REALIZED MY INTERPRETATION WAS WRONG and began reading it literally. I would have realized my human limitations and not been stubborn about it. Of course, when I began studying the evidence, I saw that my interpretation was correct.

Oh, so the Bible doesn't say God created everything in six days? Are you saying the verses in the Bible that say this are not really there?

No, the words are there, but that meaning is not there.

So again the sun doesn't move at all? And when God stopped the sun, did He actually stop the sun itself or did He stop everything that was in motion in space so the sun would stop? And if that is how He did it, then the earth too would have stopped. The point is you and I don't know how He did it, we just know He did. Just because the earth is not said in the verse that it stopped, doesn't mean it didn't stop.

Exactly. Just because it SAYS the sun is what stopped, this could MEAN that the earth stopped. Now you are getting the point.

God's authority. It says the sun stopped, who am I to question God.
Let me ask you a far greater question: Who are you to question God?

I don't, this is the point. I don't try to insist that God MUST have done it a certain way based solely on my personal choice of interpretation. I accept whatever way He chose to do things, even if they upset traditional readings and understandings.

If you have children, do you teach them to question everything you do and say?

No, they must simply obey. The question is whether they properly understand what I say. If I use figures of speech and they take it literally, it really annoys me. My daughter is very bright and thinks it is very clever to do this intentionally.

Ah, I thought God told you what language was the best and not just a general statement.

No, you thought wrong.

What is the Christian message Vance? Is it geocentrism? Is it evolution? Is it creationism? Is it the green plant? Is it dirt of earth? No, the Christian message is Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind. Through Jesus' Christ blood we are saved. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the gate, and the narrow road is the road to salvation. Sin came into the world through one man, and one man gave redemption to all who believe.

Exactly. It is not specifically about origins. But the messages contained in Genesis 1 and 2 are important to that message.

The belief of the sun revolving around the earth has damaged these teachings? Has believing the earth is young, was created in six days, God created Adam and through Adam's disobedience sin came into the world, damaged these teachings?

Yes, the teaching of a young earth and a six day creation has definitely damaged that message of God we both agree upon. We have seen that very damage described over and over.

Or maybe believing death/pain/suffering, man evolving not created, Adam is fictious, sin was just there, has damaged these teachings. This thought has confused how sin came into the world, it has confused why Christ did what He did, and how it all started.

No, it has not caused damage at all, except for those who have been indoctrinated with dogmatic YEC'ism and, thus, see it as an absolute conflict. For those who have not been so indoctrinated, there is no problem whatsoever. Christian Faith is alive and well right along with all those beliefs. This is the basic point.

You wanna bring up young earthers has the ones who are destroying the Christian faith, let me let you in on something. Mormons are teaching their students that the one way to discredit Christianity is through the belief that Adam, Eve, Moses, and creation are all just a myth. And you are apart of this helping in this cause of the Mormons. I know you have not meant to, but it is happening.

Well, the Mormons are wrong. They are not all "just myths". But, to the extent they teach that Genesis 1 and 2 is not literal, it can not possibly damage Christianity except for those who have been indoctrinated with YEC teaching. So, who then is helping them along?

You want to know something very precious and often overlooked? Jesus said have the faith of a child. The child doesn't question the Father, the child believe what the Father says. The child doesn't believe the Father only speaks truth, but believes the Father speaks truth and true. The child doesn't question the Father, but believes exactly what the Father tells the child. The child may not even understand, but the child knows that he/she doesn't have to because the Father knows. The child believes the Father knows best and does whatever the Father asks.

And I believe all of that, where is the problem? Choosing a non-literal reading if that is how it is meant to be read IS accepting God at His Word and not questioning Him. A literal reading v. a non-literal reading is a choice between two HUMAN teachings. God could have meant it either way. So, we must first discern how God wanted us to read it before we can just accept without further questioning. Study to show thyself approved. Rightly divide the Word of Truth. These are commands to take positive action for discernment, not just passive inaction.

This world says question everything. God says question everything from the world, but there is no need to question Him. God is always right, not just in truth but in everything that is true. God didn't move His people to write something that could only be understood by the phd's of the world. God moved His people to write something everyone can understand, even a child.

Yes and no. This is a basic flaw of the modern evangelical movement, as rmwilliams has been pointing out. My father was an Assembly of God minister for 30 years and we have discussed this in detail. This movement grew out of the poor south, which had a VERY big chip on its shoulder and a huge inferiority complex regarding those better educated. They taught an approach to Christianity both in the Word and in experience, which developed out of these "issues". The fundamentalist reading of Scripture became popular because it avoided any need for interpretive efforts (while raising even more intepretive problems). Charismatic worship became popular because it was based primarily on emotion, which is shared by all equally. The problem is that neither is that simple. My father only came to realize this late in his ministry and now fully acknowledges the severe problems with this movement and the damage it is causing.

Yes, the basic salvation message IS that simple and can be understood by all. Even the basic message of Creation is that simple and can be understood by all. But no, not every aspect of God's Word is as easily grasped, much less the details about the creation of an entire universe. Do you think your pastor should not have a degree in theology? Why would he need it if it was all equally understandable to all? Why the Biblical role of "teacher"?

Jesus taught many hard teachings and as a result many turned and walked away. Notice though that Jesus did not water down His teachings, nor did He change them as to make a ramp so more souls could be saved. Jesus didn't call this the narrow path for nothing, and Jesus didn't say we would be persecuted as only kidding. It is a tough teaching, but Jesus said it in His Word and instructed us to have the faith of a child. And a child believes just because the Father said so.

Yes, this is all true. And if God meant Genesis 1 and 2 to be read non-literally, then it is not watering anything down or changing it at all. Which is, of course, what I believe. You continue to think that those of us who believe in theistic evolution actually think the literal reading is the right one, but we choose not to believe and teach otherwise for some reason. This is very odd since we have told you so often that it is not true. I would believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are non-literal if I knew nothing about evolution or an old earth and I had no one to teach it to.

That is really all I have to say Vance. You can continue on your ramp building, road widening ministry. I wish you would really take some time out and read through Scripture and pray seriously.

And I could say the same to you, but unlike you, I would not assume that you don't read the Scripture or pray seriously. But what this does is reveal your true beliefs about those who believe differently than you. Despite all your earlier denials, this shows that you obviously DO believe that we don't read the Scripture as much or believe it as strongly. That we DON'T pray as seriously as you do. Your entire underlying premise here truly is that we are not as committed and as solid in our Christian faith as you are.

This is just wrong.

 

[United]

There has been a lot of discussion lately about how TE’s should not be trying to argue against young earth creationism. That it just damages Christianity to have internal bickering, etc. I would like to propose a hypothetical.

First of all, you must read the page linked here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/geni15.htm

http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm


and more generally here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/

OK, once you have read these, imagine the following.

Let’s say that a number of these geocentric ministries begin to gain converts among the fundamentalist Christian groups. There are seminars and books and pretty soon half of the American Christian community believes that the Scripture plainly teaches that the sun and the stars revolve around a fixed earth.

Actually, I have no problems believing that the sun (and the rest of the universe for that matter) revolves around the earth. I guess that means I would side with the geocentric's!

Engineers & physicists often do calculations in different frames of reference & then convert results between them. One frame of reference isn't more correct then the next one - they are all correct views of the same thing. The strictest literal interpretation can only conclude that God's frame of reference is here on earth - which is exactly what I would expect from a loving God.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I have no problems believing that the sun (and the rest of the universe for that matter) revolves around the earth. I guess that means I would side with the geocentric's!

Engineers & physicists often do calculations in different frames of reference & then convert results between them. One frame of reference isn't more correct then the next one - they are all correct views of the same thing. The strictest literal interpretation can only conclude that God's frame of reference is here on earth - which is exactly what I would expect from a loving God.

Yes, but regardless of point of reference. Do you think that the earth is fixed (not spinning on its axis) and that the sun and the stars literally revolve around it? This is what the geocentrists believe now, and what all Christianity believed in 1500.

Most of use here agree that the proper reading of those Scriptures is that God is using Man as the point of reference and to Man it looked as if the Sun stopped when it must have been that the earth actually stopped.

Unless you really are agreeing with the science of the modern geocentrist.

By the way, it is interesting to note that one of the leading Creationist organizations had a bit of a blow up a while back (it was either ICR or AiG) because they came out strong against geocentrism, saying that it was damaging to the message of Christianity since it was just bad science and undermined people's faith in Scripture (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, there were some strong supporters and members of that organization who were also strict literal geocentrists, and they got very upset and left the organization.