The Bible says "round" that can mean a spherical shape. Round - If you type it in Yahoo Images . com you will receive pictures in the shape of a circle. If you are in space looking from the moon to the earth, it would look like a circle not a sphere. Besides not only this way of telling that the earth is spherical. There are other passages that I have stated in this thread that shows the spherical state of the earth not just this verse of scripture that you talk about. Just because Biblical Creationists view "Genesis" as literal does not mean they have to take the WHOLE Bible literal. Because there are some parts you just don't take literal. Genesis however has to be literal for any creation to be true, If it is just a figurative story then How did God create His Creation? (Prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story, Where did the curse of sin start (prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story where is the justification for a "new body" ; "New Heaven - New Earth" ; Restoration point of before the fall of Adam and the resurrection and death of Jesus Christ (Prove this Biblically).
The answer is, "we don't know". The bible doesn't have all the answers to our questions, religious or otherwise.
The reason I say, "prove this biblically" is because you cannot prove this biblically without "ADDING" to the Bible from outside information.
We ALL add our interpretation to the text; it is impossible to read a passage of scripture without looking at it through our own set of cultural glasses, so to speak. We each bring our own presuppositions to the text.
You have already 'assumed' that the Bible has no science based on the knowledge of mankind back at the time it was written and that science 'today' is correct and infallible. Which it is not, the Bible has a lot of science you just have to understand it. The fossil record goes pretty well with the Flood of Noah.
Actually, it doesn't go that well at all. Why are fossils sorted into different geological layers, for example? If fossils were formed in a single, worldwide flood, we should see a great mixing of different types of organisms in the same geological layer. Really, the theory of evolution is the
easiest theory to prove false; all a creationist needs to do is find a single fossil dog or rabbit or human in the "Pre-Cambrian" layer, and we'd have to return to the drawing board on the theory, so to speak, or even become special creationists ourselves. But
not a single fossil has
ever been found out of place, that is unexplainable by evolutionary theory.
Not a single one.
If it was a figurative story in GENESIS, why do we have rainbows as a promise from God to never flood the earth? You see I can tell you how the Biblical Creation has to be "literal" for anything to be known to mankind through the preconditions of intelligibility. If it was a allegorical message then these preconditions would be useless because there would be know justification that they were created by God because it is metaphorical. You view JESUS' death on the cross literal. Why do you believe this is literal?
Genre is important. The gospels were written directly by, or by close associates of, Jesus' closest followers. Genesis was written by Moses 2-3 thousand years after the supposed events of Genesis 1-2 took place, and was probably based on hymns sung around a campfire, and myths and legends passed down largely by word-of-mouth for many generations.
///////////The bible will contradict modern science, because the bible was written by men with a very limited understanding of the natural world; and it wasn't necessary for the Holy Spirit to correct such errors for its spiritual message to be communicated. Again, it comes back to the purpose of scripture: was it written to inform us of science (if so, why no mention of galaxies or DNA or atoms or quarks?), or was it written to tell us about God, and how we can relate to God?//////////////
This statement in the paragraph is fallacious. You comparing the Bible to modern science and saying that modern science is the correct is just fallacious. Just because the Bible will contradict modern science does not mean that the Bible "has" to be metaphorical just because 'science' assumes what has happened in the beginning when in fact they do not know jack on a stick about what happened because they cannot not prove it and they never will be able to prove it. Let me ask you this question. Since you view Genesis as nonliteral.
Do you believe this verse is non-literal?
Genesis 1:1 - "In The Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."
This is probably the first line of a beautiful, divinely-inspired hymn, and I'm not the first Christian to think so (e.g. R J Berry, a committed Christian and biologist, and Augustine of Hippo, the great Christian proponent of salvation by grace, to name just a couple).
As to whether or not Genesis 1:1 is literal, I would say the author was trying to extol God for his creation of all things, so the statement in Genesis 1:1 is probably accurate. But to break Genesis 1 down into what is literal and what is not misses the whole point of the poetry; it's kind of like taking the famous hymn, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!" and wondering if "grace" can actually, physically, make a sound, or not. Getting caught up on what "grace" sounds like is to rob the hymn of its beauty and power, and to use the text in a way its author never intended it to be used.
If so why do you hold this as literal? You said Genesis is not literal. If Genesis 1:1 is literal why isn't the rest of Genesis 1 literal and how can you prove it is not?
(Also the Bible was inspired by God, Man kind did not write what they wanted too. So to say that the Bible is contradictory to modern science is to say that God's knowledge does not measure up to that of scientists today. This is saying that God does know much, which is fallacious. It is not because he doesn't measure up to scientists...It is because you do not understand your Bible as he told them what to write. You are basing the Bible from Outside information. For "SCIENCE" modern science to have any effect in the Christian view, GENESIS has to be non-literal or Evolution is false and modern science is wrong. This is why you all view it as non-literal, you are deceived by modern science telling, "you" the way it was then putting those assumptions in the Bible by saying Genesis is non-literal so you can fit these ideas in the Bible. Revelation = "literal" ---correlates to --- Genesis = "literal" --- Relates to --- Crucifixion of Christ and resurrection of Christ. How? (1 Corinthians 15:21-the rest of scripture.)
Most of you guys based this verse of scripture on, "spiritual" only so it will not date back to Genesis with Adam and the fall because of the non-literal view, but the Bible here clearly shows the physical death and why he had to go through it, and this means physical death, because it will have a Cross Reference to Genesis talking about Adam. When TE's take this verse of scripture and say it is spiritual only, they are lying to themselves because this is based upon their presuppositions in which are based on modern science in which they have believed over the infallible word of God.
(Not a flaming statement to anyone. Just trying to show them how science compared to the Bible is fallible.)
It's not so much that TE's think the biblical authors only wrote a spiritual message: we can see as plainly as any creationist that the creation story recorded in scripture alludes to the physical as well as the spiritual, but it was also written according to a pre-scientific understanding of the natural world, and it was not the intention of the Holy Spirit to correct errors of scientific understanding. And unlike many old-earth or progressive creationists, we take the "days" of Genesis 1 to be exactly that: literal, 24-hour days. But the genre is poetry, not science or history, and should be interpreted with caution; better yet, it should be enjoyed for its beauty and theological overtones.