Young Earth Creationism

[CryptoLutheran]

And how is that geocentric?

Because in a heliocentric model it's the earth that's moving, not the sun. If the Bible were interested in illustrating a heliocentric model it wouldn't say that the sun was made to stop, it would say that God stopped the rotation of the earth.

Two problems with your...*ahem*...logic.

The first is that the book of Psalms is poetic language. You would think that you would know this from the first part of this verse, as neither majesty nor strength are kinds of clothing.

The second is that the verse is referring to God's power to create the world, not the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun.

It was only one example of such language, 1 Chronicles 16:30 says the same.

Only if you don't know what geocentrism or heliocentrism means.

I'm quite aware of what geocentrism and heliocentrism are. And a literal reading of the Bible leads to a geocentric cosmology.

There is, of course, the option to recognize that the purpose of Scripture isn't to teach us science, and that it's perfectly okay to accept the evidence which discover through a scientific exploration of the natural world as well as believe in the inspiration and holiness of Sacred Writ.

In which case there's no trouble in accepting a heliocentric model of the solar system, or the theory of general relativity, or evolution and a 14 billion year old universe.

"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 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

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spirko]

Because in a heliocentric model it's the earth that's moving, not the sun. If the Bible were interested in illustrating a heliocentric model it wouldn't say that the sun was made to stop, it would say that God stopped the rotation of the earth.

Except that we don't talk that way. Do you believe that the National Weather Service is to be trusted? If so, why? After all, by your standards, they're geocentrists. Just this morning, they our local weatherman said that the National Weather Service said that the sun rises.

It was only one example of such language, 1 Chronicles 16:30 says the same.

Yes, you're right. 1 Chronicles 16:30 does refer the awesome creative power of God, not to the movement of the Earth in relation to the Sun. Thanks for giving another example of a verse some people might mistakenly try to claim refers to geocentrism.

I'm quite aware of what geocentrism and heliocentrism are. And a literal reading of the Bible leads to a geocentric cosmology.

Only if you don't know what geocentrism and heliocentrism are.

There is, of course, the option to recognize that the purpose of Scripture isn't to teach us science, and that it's perfectly okay to accept the evidence which discover through a scientific exploration of the natural world as well as believe in the inspiration and holiness of Sacred Writ.

So, it's OK for you if the Holy Spirit who inspired the Biblical authors doesn't know what He's talking about? Let me ask you this: if the Holy Spirit, who created the Universe, can't even get the movement of the planets right, then how are we to trust anything else He has to say?

...St. Augustine of Hippo

Last time I checked, Augustine's opinions were not scripture.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Except that we don't talk that way. Do you believe that the National Weather Service is to be trusted? If so, why? After all, by your standards, they're geocentrists. Just this morning, they our local weatherman said that the National Weather Service said that the sun rises.

Taken literally yes. Of course I absolutely do believe that the biblical authors maintained a geocentric cosmology (if they weren't, one wonders why it took until after Copernicus and Galileo for Christians to start thinking heliocentrism is found in the biblical texts). Regardless, you and I seem to be in agreement that a wooden, literal reading of the text (or of your local weather man) isn't absolutely necessary. You don't believe the sun actually stopped (that would be the literal reading), but something more like the earth stopped, therefore taking an other-than absolutely literal approach.

So, it's OK for you if the Holy Spirit who inspired the Biblical authors doesn't know what He's talking about? Let me ask you this: if the Holy Spirit, who created the Universe, can't even get the movement of the planets right, then how are we to trust anything else He has to say?

So, wait a moment. It's okay not to read Joshua 10:13 literally, but if one doesn't read Genesis 1 literally then the only conclusion you can come up with is that the Holy Spirit doesn't know what He's doing?

If the Holy Spirit were interested in telling me about the movement of the planets and general physics of the universe in Sacred Writ then I suppose I would have to conclude that He made a mistake. But I don't believe He was ever interested in telling me about the movement of the planets and the general physics of the universe. I believe He was interested in something far more important than that, telling me about God.

Last time I checked, Augustine's opinions were not scripture.

The point still stands though, the fact of the matter is Christians have been perfectly okay with recognizing that our interpretations of Scripture aren't infallible and that there are times when our interpretations make no sense of what is the painfully obvious of the world around us.

The Geocentrist who demands that we reject the notion that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates upon its axis, and that our sun is a star like billions of others across the known universe is as much in error as the Young Earth Creationist who demands that we reject evolution, the means by which we date the geological age of the earth, or the obvious fact concerning the distance of stars and the laws governing the speed of light in the universe.

The choice, I figure, is simple. I can be a thinking person who simultaneously believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ and confess Him Lord, Savior, Son of God, crucified and risen, seated at the right hand of the Father and accepts the basic information in regard to the evidence of the natural world as regards to the motions of stars, planets, light, the natural processes of evolution, and the like; or I can create a false dichotomy between the two, saying I must pick one or the other and exist either as a Christian living in ignorance of the created world around me or deny my faith because I am unable to see any other way.

I choose the former, because I don't believe God requires that I put my brain in a box in order to follow His Son and confess the Creeds of His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spirko]

Taken literally yes. Of course I absolutely do believe that the biblical authors maintained a geocentric cosmology (if they weren't, one wonders why it took until after Copernicus and Galileo for Christians to start thinking heliocentrism is found in the biblical texts). Regardless, you and I seem to be in agreement that a wooden, literal reading of the text (or of your local weather man) isn't absolutely necessary. You don't believe the sun actually stopped (that would be the literal reading), but something more like the earth stopped, therefore taking an other-than absolutely literal approach.

The problem is that you're reinterpreting "literal" to mean hyper-literal to an almost cartoonish characature. In your grossly misguided idea of literalism, there is no room for intent, context, intended audience, etc.

That's not what we mean when we say "literal" and it's an awful hermeneutic.

But I don't believe He was ever interested in telling me about the movement of the planets and the general physics of the universe.

Then your claims about those verses are moot.

The Geocentrist who demands that we reject the notion that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates upon its axis, and that our sun is a star like billions of others across the known universe is as much in error as the Young Earth Creationist who demands that we reject evolution

So then, you believe that the idea that proteins magically turned into a frog that turned into a monkey that eventually became a man is science?

The choice, I figure, is simple. I can be a thinking person who simultaneously believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ

Actually, you can't believe in evolution and the Gospel at the same time because in order to believe in evolution, you have to reject key parts of the Gospel.

I choose the former, because I don't believe God requires that I put my brain in a box in order to follow His Son and confess the Creeds of His Church.

Nor do I, but your insulting insinuation is duly noted.

 

[Exial]

But why does it need to change if it's never wrong?

What? Anyone who claims science is never wrong should not be trusted. Anyone who claims absolute truth should not be trusted.

Science is a man made invention, therefore fallible but I do believe that it is the best method of learning about the natural world.

Isaiah 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 a sphere.

Actually, none of the verses you cited say anything about the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun. Nice try, though.

Two problems with your...*ahem*...logic.

The first is that the book of Psalms is poetic language. You would think that you would know this from the first part of this verse, as neither majesty nor strength are kinds of clothing.

The second is that the verse is referring to God's power to create the world, not the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun.

Would you concede that historically at least the church did hold a geocentric view of the earth which was lead to the persecution of Galileo?

Actually, you can't believe in evolution and the Gospel at the same time because in order to believe in evolution, you have to reject key parts of the Gospel.

Many Christians do accept evolution though
It's a simple fact of life.

 

[Exial]

Nor do I, but your insulting insinuation is duly noted.

Now now ladies handbags away

 

[Spirko]

Now now ladies handbags away

'Scuse me while I report this.

 

[Spirko]

...OK. I'm back.

A circle is not a sphere.

But a sphere is. Remember, that verse was not written in English. While the word has commonly been translated as "circle", it refers to a spherical shape.

Would you concede that historically at least the church did hold a geocentric view of the earth which was lead to the persecution of Galileo?

I conceede that the Catholic Church held this view.

Many Christians do accept evolution though
It's a simple fact of life.

There are two explanations for this: they either do so because they do not understand the Gospel, in which case they're probably not Christians to begin with, or else they are weak in the faith and are ignorant of the contradictions between evolution and the Gospel.

No one who understands the Gospel believes evolution because they would then have to admit that either evolution is wrong or the Gospel is wrong.

 

[Exial]

'Scuse me while I report this.

Any fair-minded moderator could see that was quite clearly a joke.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Let's just deal with a couple of these.

So then, you believe that the idea that proteins magically turned into a frog that turned into a monkey that eventually became a man is science?

Nope. In fact nobody believes that, except apparently certain Young Earth Creationists who think this even remotely approximates evolution.

Actually, you can't believe in evolution and the Gospel at the same time because in order to believe in evolution, you have to reject key parts of the Gospel.

I assume you have in mind the Fall and Christ's rescuing us from it. That we share a common genetic ancestor with the great apes hardly changes the fact that sin exists and Christ rescues us from it. I have no idea how much contact you have with those of us who subscribe to Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism, but I'd encourage you to make an effort to do more so.

Nor do I, but your insulting insinuation is duly noted.

Had no desire to offend. I just couldn't be honest with myself if I had to reject the vast body of scientific knowledge that we've attained over the past two hundred + years in order to consider myself a Christian. Christianity doesn't stand or fall upon belief that God created the universe within a span of six 24 hour days roughly six thousand years ago. Not when we have human tools and archeological evidence of human activity spanning tens of thousands of years and fossil evidence demonstrating that our ancestry goes back hundreds of thousands of years ago; as well as genetic evidence demonstrating our genetic relationship within the primate family tree and the fact that there are stars that are billions of light years away that we can see. The fact that a star shines its light upon our blue marble, and that light began travel here billions of years prior to when Young Earth Creationism says the universe even existed is a clear and observable demonstration of a very old universe. The alternative is to say that God has deliberately designed a young universe that deceptively looks much older than it is, a position that I can not in good conscious take.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Exial]

But a sphere is. Remember, that verse was not written in English. While the word has commonly been translated as "circle", it refers to a spherical shape.

In my language circle means a circle and a sphere means a sphere.

If they intended for the word to be translated as a sphere then why not just do that? why call it a circle but have it refer to a sphere? That is overcomplicating it.

I concede that the Catholic Church held this view.

They are still Christians.

There are two explanations for this: they either do so because they do not understand the Gospel, in which case they're probably not Christians to begin with, or else they are weak in the faith and are ignorant of the contradictions between evolution and the Gospel.

No one who understands the Gospel believes evolution because they would then have to admit that either evolution is wrong or the Gospel is wrong.

Do you consider it possible that your understanding of the Gospel could be wrong?

 

[Spirko]

In my language circle means a circle and a sphere means a sphere.

As it does in mine. However, we're talking about another language being translated into our language. If you've ever studied another language, then you should already know that there are words and phrases that don't always translate smoothly.

If they intended for the word to be translated as a sphere then why not just do that? why call it a circle but have it refer to a sphere? That is overcomplicating it.

See above.

They are still Christians.

Even if you believe that, it's irrelevant. They are not "The Church". They are, at best, a group within the Church.

Do you consider it possible that your understanding of the Gospel could be wrong?

Sure. I'm always the first to admit that I could be wrong. However, in this instance, because what I've said is consistent with scripture, with the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity, and with 2,000 years of Christian scholarship and orthdoxy, I am not wrong in this case.

 

[Exial]

As it does in mine. However, we're talking about another language being translated into our language. If you've ever studied another language, then you should already know that there are words and phrases that don't always translate smoothly.

So what is the original translation?

Even if you believe that, it's irrelevant. They are not "The Church". They are, at best, a group within the Church.

They are the largest group within the church.

Sure. I'm always the first to admit that I could be wrong. However, in this instance, because what I've said is consistent with scripture, with the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity, and with 2,000 years of Christian scholarship and orthdoxy, I am not wrong in this case.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Sure. I'm always the first to admit that I could be wrong. However, in this instance, because what I've said is consistent with scripture, with the historic creeds, confessions, and catechisms of Christianity, and with 2,000 years of Christian scholarship and orthdoxy, I am not wrong in this case.

None of the historic creeds or confessions say anything about how to interpret Genesis 1.

And there have been plenty of Christian theologians, teachers, fathers (etc) who have had no difficulty recognizing that Genesis 1 needs not be taken literally and that, in fact, if our interpretations of Scripture so blatantly contradict what is a fact of the natural world then it's our interpretations that need to change.

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." - St. Augustine of Hippo

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spirko]

None of the historic creeds or confessions say anything about how to interpret Genesis 1.

None that I know of.

And there have been plenty of Christian theologians, teachers, fathers (etc) who have had no difficulty recognizing that Genesis 1 needs not be taken literally and that, in fact, if our interpretations of Scripture so blatantly contradict what is a fact of the natural world then it's our interpretations that need to change.

OK. You base your understanding of God's Word on the world around you. I'll continue to base my understanding of the world around me on God's Word.

Now, please excuse me while I add you to my ignore list.

 

[Exial]

Crypto, would you agree that Spirko is trolling?

 

[Spirko]

So what is the original translation?

Probably "qui sedet super gyrum terrae et habitatores eius sunt quasi lucustae qui extendit velut nihilum caelos et expandit eos sicut tabernaculum ad inhabitandum".

They are the largest group within the church.

I disagree. But even if they were, so what? They still are only a relatively minor part of the church and do not speak for, nor have any authority over, the rest of us.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So what is the original translation?

The word is chwg in Hebrew (חוג). It doesn't mean "sphere", though I'm not educated enough in Hebrew to say that it couldn't be used that way. The instances it's used however are:

"Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that sees not; and he walks in the circuit of heaven." - Job 22:14

"When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depths;" - Proverb 8:27

"[It is] he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in:" - Isaiah 40:22

The LXX translates chwg as γῦρον ("ring" or "circle") in the passage in Job and Isaiah, as far as Proverbs goes, I can't seem to figure out the corresponding translation, though I suspect the use of the word θρόνον ("throne" or "chair") is used here instead (but by no means could prove it, and it's just a hunch and anyone more informed than me could easily prove me wrong if I am).

-CryptoLutheran