PDA

View Full Version : How to defend: "Bible says the Earth is flat" and other issues?



Paul_born_again
May 9th 2007, 11:24 PM
I am posting in a topic on a message board where the atheists/evolutionists are claiming that literal 6-day creation in the Bible must be taken as metaphor, and that the Bible also states that the Earth is flat (among other things), which should therefore also be taken as a metaphor.

Just a note: I am hoping to get some common sense advice on the meanings of these verses. Saying "The Bible is infallible" (although I agree with that), won't help when dealing with unbelievers.


Some of the passages they are using:

Claim: "Earth is flat"

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

(they are implying the Earth has "ends", as in the edges of a rectangle)

Job 38:14
It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment.

(they are implying that the Earth is flat, like the clay under a seal is flat)

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

(they are implying that the Earth must be flat in order to see all the kingdoms from one point. This one I think I can explain myself (this was a vision, and obviously not meant to be taken literally) but your input is welcomed ofcourse)


Claim "Earth sits on pillars/Earth does not move"

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.

(they are implying that the Earth sits on pillars)

Job 9:6
He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;

(same implication as above)

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.

(same implication as above)

Claim "Sun moves around the Earth, not the other way around"

Psalm 19:4-6
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

(they are implying the Sun moves around the Earth)

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

(same implication as above)


I understand that some of these (especially the last 2) are from our viewpoint (same as saying "The Sun sets in the West" (where it is infact the Earth spinning and not the Sun moving)). But they are saying that since these are obviously meant to be taken as metaphor, why not Genesis 1?

Any help is appreciated :)

Saved7
May 10th 2007, 12:35 AM
Don't be too concerned with the idea that they "must" accept the 6 literal day interpretation. I am a literal 6-dayer, but I can see much logic in some of the other intrepretations of the 6 days. And until the Lord returns we have no way of proving one way or the other, it's a matter of faith.
And you are apparently dealing with the faithless, no? Therefore, make this your goal, remember what saves...faith in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the only Begotten Son of God.
The bible doesn't say, "believe on Jesus, and take this part of the bible literally, and that part symbollically, and you shall be saved", but what does it say?
"That whosoever believeth on Him, might not perish, but have everlasting life".:saint:
I say this because I just happened to have a discussion with a young man at work about a week ago. And he wasn't sure whether he could believe in God and science at the same time. And since Jesus was always complaining about the jews need for a sign, you know PROOF, I decided that this man couldn't have ignorant faith AND seek a sign at the same time. I say ignorant because he is more than well aware of all that science says, so to him that was the knowledge that could destroy his faith, if he couldn't figure out how to marry his knowlege to his faith.
So, I gave him permission to have faith AND believe science. I figure "who am I to insist that he have the same faith as me?" By the end of the conversation, he felt so much better, I could see it all over his face.:saint: :pp
To him evolution is glorifying to God, but to me, it's insulting to God's power. Therefore, if he has been told that you can't have both, faith and believe in evolution, I should let him know, he can.:) His faith is more important than that I believe.

Hope this helps.:hug:

aliensyndm
May 10th 2007, 12:37 AM
I'm no expert but here's a couple of ideas, I'm sure someone else will expand/improve on these..



Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?


If you have a designated starting point and end point on a sphere you have ends. Doesn't have to be ends as in sides/edges.



Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.



If you are above a sphere looking down.....you see a circle. This one appears to be exactly correct to me. Also note how it says he stretches out the heavens.......universe expanding/stretching and all that.


There is also a verse somewhere that says "he hangeth the earth upon nothing". This implies the earth is suspended in mid-air so to say, rather than being supported by something........which we seem to have evidence it is. I think the pillars must be metaphorical or something like if I said the foundations of modern chess theory were made by Steintz and Tarrasch, it doesn't mean they actually built pillars and foundations does it ?

threebigrocks
May 10th 2007, 02:36 AM
We can't deal with an unbeliever like a believer, because they aren't. :rolleyes: So to tell them flat fact biblically isn't going to move them. Finding a common thread is important.

All I can think of off the top of my head this busy evening is to ask someone who has been to space and spent some time there. They've had a pretty good perspective on all of the arguements of those you are up against. Can you imagine one of them saying that they saw something, pillars, holding up the earth? Or that the earth doesn't spin? Or that the sun did laps around them in the space station?

Items for thought. :)

Paul_born_again
May 10th 2007, 03:04 AM
Can you imagine one of them saying that they saw something, pillars, holding up the earth? Or that the earth doesn't spin? Or that the sun did laps around them in the space station?

That's exactly my main issue though (sorry if I wasn't more clear in my original post).

Since we know that there are really no literal pillars holding up the earth, than we say that that is metaphor in the Bible. How does one respond when an evolutionist/atheist says that this same thought-process can be applied to Genesis 1 (in terms of it being a metaphor)? Today we know for certain that there are no literal pillars holding the Earth, and in many years from now (when science advances further), we will know that Genesis 1 was also a metaphor. (I don't believe Gen 1 is a metaphor - but this is their reasoning).

Righton
May 10th 2007, 05:06 AM
I am posting in a topic on a message board where the atheists/evolutionists are claiming that literal 6-day creation in the Bible must be taken as metaphor, and that the Bible also states that the Earth is flat (among other things), which should therefore also be taken as a metaphor.

Just a note: I am hoping to get some common sense advice on the meanings of these verses. Saying "The Bible is infallible" (although I agree with that), won't help when dealing with unbelievers.


Some of the passages they are using:

Claim: "Earth is flat"

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

(they are implying the Earth has "ends", as in the edges of a rectangle)

Inform them of the existence of the oceans.


Job 38:14
It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment.

(they are implying that the Earth is flat, like the clay under a seal is flat)

Hmmm.... What takes on? The Earth? The planet?

Take notice that most scripture passages which talk about "the earth" are not of "the planet" but "Earth" as in land.


Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")

"Sphere, spear!"

Honestly. Ask them why they are being so a n a l. If "circle" is understood, they're desperately trying to cling to anything they can find!

Hint: They are quoting something called, "The Skeptic's Bible." They are incapable of thinking these things on their own accord. This "Bible" is one which seeks to ridicule the Word of God, and it's PC in the extreme.


Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

(they are implying that the Earth must be flat in order to see all the kingdoms from one point. This one I think I can explain myself (this was a vision, and obviously not meant to be taken literally) but your input is welcomed ofcourse)


Sounds like a plan. Also, "all" is not necessarily meant to be taken absolutely literally. Ask them if they ALWAYS mean "all" every time they say the word. ["You all are wrong." Well, maybe that is an exaggeration, because maybe there's someone who agrees with you.]



Claim "Earth sits on pillars/Earth does not move"

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.

(they are implying that the Earth sits on pillars)

"Set the world" does not necessarily mean "set the planet".

I thought the planet was already said to be circular by scripture?


Job 9:6
He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;

(same implication as above)

Maybe "pillars" are a reference to volcanoes? That one just occurred to me, as I am editing this post.


1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.

(same implication as above)

Moved from what? Its place around the sun? Its orbit?


Claim "Sun moves around the Earth, not the other way around"

Psalm 19:4-6
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

(they are implying the Sun moves around the Earth)

Oh, brother!

This one is easy. Simply ask them where the sun rises and where the sun sets. Guaranteed, they'll agree with this scripture passage.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

(same implication as above)



I understand that some of these (especially the last 2) are from our viewpoint (same as saying "The Sun sets in the West" (where it is infact the Earth spinning and not the Sun moving)). But they are saying that since these are obviously meant to be taken as metaphor, why not Genesis 1?

Any help is appreciated :)

They tend to go back and forth, don't they?

Frances
May 10th 2007, 05:59 AM
Don't be too concerned with the idea that they "must" accept the 6 literal day interpretation. . . . . .
The bible doesn't say, "believe on Jesus, and take this part of the bible literally, and that part symbollically, and you shall be saved", but what does it say?
"That whosoever believeth on Him, might not perish, but have everlasting life".

Does anyone who does not accept a literal 6x24 hour day for Creation really believe in the literal Jesus Christ? or just in a 'Jesus Christ' they consider 'acceptable?

The question arises because John 1:1 makes it clear that the world and everything in/on it was Created by Jesus Christ, and that He is God. The Bible is God's Word and it seems reasonable to believe the One who Created the world is able to ensure His account of that Creation is accurate.

If the Bible's account of Creation and the Fall is not correct how can Jesus Christ be our Saviour? - since He came to "destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil,and relase those who . . .were. . . subject to bondage."(Hebrews 2:14-15)

Saved7
May 10th 2007, 09:04 AM
Does anyone who does not accept a literal 6x24 hour day for Creation really believe in the literal Jesus Christ? or just in a 'Jesus Christ' they consider 'acceptable?

The question arises because John 1:1 makes it clear that the world and everything in/on it was Created by Jesus Christ, and that He is God. The Bible is God's Word and it seems reasonable to believe the One who Created the world is able to ensure His account of that Creation is accurate.

If the Bible's account of Creation and the Fall is not correct how can Jesus Christ be our Saviour? - since He came to "destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil,and relase those who . . .were. . . subject to bondage."(Hebrews 2:14-15)


While I agree with your comments Frances, keep in mind that God excepts those who are "weak in faith" also. I USED to believe in evolution also, even as a christian, and as far as I was concerned, that didn't weaken God' abilities any less. BUT, as I grew in faith, my understanding of scripture changed. I think the more important thing is to worry about whether or not these folks can align what "they feel" is logic with faith. Let God worry about how or when they come to the conclusion of creation.
And don't forget, there are some here on this board who seem to have a very good understanding of scripture and strong faith in the Lord. And to them 6 days, is six periods of time, does that mean they don't have faith and are going to hell? I don't know about you, but I am not going to be the one to make THAT judgement.:saint:

Frances
May 10th 2007, 04:44 PM
Saved7 - I was not making a Judgement, just asking a question.

Re. the 'flat earth' people - I wonder how many of them, fully aware that the world is a sphere, have never refered to 'the 4 corners of the earth' - meaning 'north, south, east and west'?

Paul - Some alternative translations to the verses you quote may be helpful?:-

Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth",
Isaiah 40:22 AMP - "it is God who sits above the horizon of the earth."

Job 38:13 "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?"
Job 38:13 NLT "Have you made daylight spread to the ends of the earth to bring an end tothe night's wickedness?"

1 Samuel 2:8 “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8 NIV -"For the foundations of the earth are the Lord's; upon them He has setthe world."
1 Samuel 2:8 NLT - "For all the world is the Lord's and He has set the world in order.

Job 9:6 "He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;
Job 9:6 NLT - "He shakes the eartah from it's place and it's foundations tremble."

1 Chronicles 16:30 - KJV "Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also shall be stable that it be not moved".
1 Chronicles 16:30 NIV - " tremble before Him, all the earth; the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
1 Chronicles 16:30 NLT - . . . . The world stands firm and cannot be shaken."

Scruffy Kid
May 10th 2007, 10:59 PM
Frances, dear sister in Christ,
In a later post you say, concerning your first post in this thread,
I was not making a Judgement, just asking a question. I really do not want to argue about a "literal 6x24 hour day" Creation. I'm just answering your original question.

Does anyone who does not accept a literal 6x24 hour day for Creation really believe in the literal Jesus Christ? or just in a 'Jesus Christ' they consider 'acceptable?

The question arises because John 1:1 makes it clear that the world and everything in/on it was Created by Jesus Christ, and that He is God. The Bible is God's Word and it seems reasonable to believe the One who Created the world is able to ensure His account of that Creation is accurate.

Answering your question

Yes, many many people who believe in Jesus Christ, fully, and literally, do not think Genesis 1 is providing an exact historical account.


My own experience of what Christians believe

The vast majority of my Christian friends think that the universe was formed billions of years ago in the Big Bang, and that life on earth developed through a process of evolution that God guided.

These are not people watering down the Christian faith.

Christ as creator and ruler of all. These same friends firmly believe, just as I do, that there is one God, creator of heaven and earth, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that God the Son became man and walked among us, and died for us and rose from the dead, to redeem us from our sins, and bring us to God, that we might have everlasting life.

This same Jesus (so I believe and so believe all the friends I just mentioned) is the one and eternal Son of God who made all things. This is testified to by John in the prologue to his gospel. "All things were made by Him and without him was nothing made of all that was made." Likewise Jesus says of himself (John 8:58) "Before Abraham was, I am" and (Luke 10:18) "I saw Satan fall, like lightning, from heaven." Paul testifies concerning him (Phil. 2:6) that "He was in very nature God, and did not think it robbery to be equal to God" and again (Col. 1:16-17) "By Him all things were created both in heaven and on earth, ... all things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together." John also says of Christ, in his first Epistle, "That which was from the beginning, we have seen and heard and touched, ... the Word of Life ... that Eternal Life which was with the Father ... we declare to you that you may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."

The historicity of the Gospels Who our Lord Jesus was, what He was like, and the Eternal Life that He is and brings us, is seen very clearly in the accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) of his life that the Bible gives us. These clearly show Jesus to be both man and God, and our only Saviour.

Christ's Saving Work. Likewise all these believe that we -- all humankind -- are sinners, born sinners, guilty, and shameful before a holy and righteous God. We are so both because of our actual sins, and also because of the distorted, sinful, fallen nature that we inherit from the fall of humanity described in Genesis 3.

As David says "Behold, I was formed in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5) As the prayer of Daniel (9:8-9) states, "O LORD to us belong confusion of face, and to our kings, princes, and fathers, because we have sinned against you; but to the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses though we have rebelled against Him." As Isaiah (6:5) said "I am a man of unclean lips and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips" and were not God to take away my sin "Woe is me!"

We are rescued from our brokenness, our sin, our shame, our guilt, and our separation from God, who alone in the fount of goodness, love, and life, by the most wonderful thing, the redemption of our world by our Lord Jesus Christ, for the means of grace and for the hope of glory. As Paul (I Cor. 15:3-5) says, our message, which we recieved and which we pass on, as of the first importance is "that Christ died for our sins, as the Scriptures had foretold, and was raised on the third day, as the Scriptures foretold, and appeared" to many. This is the Gospel in which we stand.

Through Christ alone we are saved -- He is both man and God -- for by His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to God's right hand he was purged our sins, defeated and triumphed over death, brought us into life, transferred us from the kingdom of darkness to God's marvelous light, repaired human nature, reconciled us to God, and won for us everlasting life.

The truth of the Bible Moreover, the whole Bible is utterly true and trustworthy, "God breathed" (II Tim 3:16), authoritative, and reliable. This would be the common belief of all those Christian friends I have mentioned.

Yet they differ from you about whether Genesis 1 is meant as what you'd call a "literal" account of the creation. They understand it as an account of a more poetic or philosophical kind -- a "creation hymn" which gives us (together with Gen. 2-4, etc.), perfectly and in the form God chose for us, the vital and exact theological understanding of Creation.


About how we speak with people about Christian belief

Nothing is more important for a person than that that person should believe in Christ, and give himself or herself to God in Jesus Christ, for He alone is our Saviour.

Yet many people sincerely think that the standard scientific account of how the universe came into being, including the formation of species upon earth through evolution, is unshakably established as fact. I'm not interested in debating, with you or others, what the evidence for this may or may not be. Rather, I simply know that it is a fact that many people, particularly educated people, think this. My point instead is that it is utterly important that this not be a barrier to their beliving in Christ. And, IMO, it need not be.

For as I stated, there are many, many orthodox, biblically faithful Christians who also think exactly this same thing about the standard scientific and evolutionary accounts.

Having worked with college-educated young people for decades, I can tell you that people supposing that these standard scientific accounts are incompatible with Christian belief is one of the biggest obstacles to faith -- causing many who grew up as Christians to doubt and then abandon their faith, and causing many who did not grow up as Christians to stay away from faith in Christ. On the other hand, many who never saw any conflict between these standard scientific accounts and Christian faith -- bibical Christian faith -- come to Christ from non-Christian backgrounds.

Thus I fully agree with Saved7: it is important not to allow the relatively minor issue of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis to be a stumbling block to belief in Christ.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

Saved7
May 11th 2007, 02:14 AM
Here's some stuff for you Paul....




http://youtube.com/results?search_query=kirk+cameron+o%27reilly

okiepastor
May 12th 2007, 03:19 PM
Look, and listen. 2 Peter 3:8 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If you must believe in the literal 6-days, then don't read 2 Peter.

punk
May 12th 2007, 04:00 PM
You can't get around it. The literal reading of the Bible does indicate that its writers held the Earth to be flat.

Of course we "cave" to science since science has demonstrated that the Earth is in fact round.

We are all guilty of letting science force us to have a more "liberal" reading of the text in the case of the flatness of the Earth.

But then people object to letting science imply that we should give a more "liberal" reading to the 6 day creation, after having already let science force them to give up a flat Earth.

I say, to be a 6 day-er you have to be a flat Earther, just to be consistent. If you give up the flat Earth you've already committed the "original sin" of "caving" to science.

:D

watchinginawe
May 12th 2007, 05:15 PM
Of course we "cave" to science since science has demonstrated that the Earth is in fact round.Science did this? The Earth is round with or without science. Sometimes we seem to personify science and what it accomplishes. This adds to the problem IMO. So, in essence, we "cave" to the truth or the knowledge of it. Science's "reputation" is not involved.
We are all guilty of letting science force us to have a more "liberal" reading of the text in the case of the flatness of the Earth.See what I mean? Science "forcing" us.

How about this paradigm: The Bible is the inerrant word of God. So, we are going to reconcile our knowledge (no matter how obtained) with the Bible. In areas where there are "gaps" in knowledge, we trust the Bible first, or "cave in" to the word of God. I don't see ignorance with this practice.

God Bless!

Paul_born_again
May 12th 2007, 05:34 PM
Firstly let me just say that I am disappointed. The reason I posted this thread was to get help on how to defend these claims against critics. Instead the thread has turned into advice why I should not believe in literal 6 day creation and advice why I should not be using it as an evangelical/apologetics tool (I'm making a generalization here. There were some helpful posts which I tremendously appreciate - thank you).

Perhaps this is my fault for not making my intention clear in the first post?

What many of you seem to be forgetting (either intentionally or not, I don't know), is the most important element of the verses I posted: the context of them.

We all know that the earth is not flat. The aim of the verses I posted is not a science lesson (and therefore not about the shape of the earth). On the other hand, those who believe in literal 6 day creation believe that Genesis 1 is not a science lesson either, but that the science shown in it is literal and true. Especially when this science is compared to evolutionary science. This is what I hoped this thread would be about.

I will go through 2 of the examples I posted, but the same methodology can be applied to the rest.


Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

What is this verse about? Is it about science or is it about temptation? We all know that the purpose of the book of Genesis 1 is to show how God created the (perfect) universe, and how man's choice was sin, and how we need a redeemer. In addition to this, those who believe in literal 6 day creation, also believe that the science contained in Gen 1 is true.

In the same way, Matt 4:8 is not meant to be taken as a basis for science, rather, it is meant to be taken as a message of temptation and salvation. Jesus has "walked in our shoes" and was tempted by sin just as we are tempted by sin. Even though He was tempted, He still did not sin. That is a very strong comfort for us and that is the purpose of Matt 4:8.

Take Job 38:14 as another example:
It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

What is the book of Job about? Is it a science lesson, or is it about "why do bad things happen to good people?".
Job curses God for being born, afterwards God gives him a speech about how limited and small human understanding is ("Where were you...", "Have you comprehended....", and so on....).
When God says that He formed the earth as a seal forms clay, He is saying that He controls the very way the Earth is formed - from every mountain to every valley. Metaphorically - God pushed His "finger" into the "land".
This is what I see when I read It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. To me, the meaning of the verse has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, but it has everything to do with God showing Job that He formed it all.




Look, and listen. 2 Peter 3:8 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If you must believe in the literal 6-days, then don't read 2 Peter.


You are taking this verse out of context. Is 2 Peter 3:8 about the age of the universe, or is it about having Christians not lose our faith because we think that God is late in His promises to us? The entire rest of the chapter has nothing to do with science or the age of the earth (it has to do with patience in waiting for our Lord), so why should we pick out this one verse and apply it to that? This verse is obvious in its aim of figure of speech - the Creator is eternal so a 1000 years may as well be compared to 1 day from His viewpoint.

Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings[/U], but you were not willing.

If we take that literally as well, should we believe that God has wings? Of course not, because the context of the verse has nothing to do with whether or not God has wings.


Picking out verses and applying them to a scientific context when they were not meant to have a scientific context is an unfair way to debate the issue of young-earth vs old-earth creation. That is why I made this thread and I hoped I would get more help in trying to defend this point. Those who believe in literal 6 day creation, like myself, believe that the science contained in Gen 1 is true to the word, but nonetheless, we realize that the Bible is not meant to be taken as a science text book, therefore you cannot apply everything in it to tested and verified science.


I fear that more replies about whether or not 6-day creation is literal or not will just add "fuel the fire" even more and distract from my original intent of the thread. I apologize for not making my intent clear.

Pilgrimtozion
May 12th 2007, 05:38 PM
Scruffy,

I am greatly inspired by many of your posts. But your claim that Genesis 1 is a philosophical account is one of a highly curious nature in my estimation. Of all things that Genesis 1 might be called, I would not call it a philosophical one. If that were so, it would be a very weak philosophical account. I would be more prone to argue that Genesis 1 and 2 communicate the Creation account from a Hebrew perspective rather than a Greek one, and that any problems in interpretation lie in a lack of understanding that principle.

One of the major issues with the "the Bible says the earth is flat" concept is that the Bible was never meant to be a science textbook. The Bible was never written to conform to the laws of science nor does its content need to. Rather, it was written as a communication from God to man. As such, God needs to communicate in language that man can understand in order for it to be understood. Apparently, God did not talk about a globe just to satisfy our scientific mindset. No, he communicated about the circle of the earth and such in order to make Himself known to the people of the time. Those prophecies were recorded and conveyed to us as the Word of God, but they are no meant to be textbooks for science. That doesn't make the Bible wrong as such; it just means that God communicates in language and in concepts the people can understand.

punk
May 13th 2007, 03:46 AM
Science did this? The Earth is round with or without science. Sometimes we seem to personify science and what it accomplishes. This adds to the problem IMO. So, in essence, we "cave" to the truth or the knowledge of it. Science's "reputation" is not involved.See what I mean? Science "forcing" us.

How about this paradigm: The Bible is the inerrant word of God. So, we are going to reconcile our knowledge (no matter how obtained) with the Bible. In areas where there are "gaps" in knowledge, we trust the Bible first, or "cave in" to the word of God. I don't see ignorance with this practice.

God Bless!

Well then, I guess the world must be flat. :hmm:

Toolapc
May 13th 2007, 02:04 PM
atheists/evolutionists

What's the future evolution of mankind:confused ask this simple question to a so called evolutionists. they will say :giveup:.

The truth is they shouldnt even be aloud to call themself evolutionists.


they dont even no the futuer evolution of mankind so how can they take the name evolutionists. instead it should be called the study of monkeys

i consider myself an evolutionists because i no the future evolution of mankind. Very simple mankind has a corruptible body that decays. When mankind evolves man will receive an incorruptible Christ like body that does not decay.

you see the bible tells us the future evolution of mankind and science cant even come close instead they study monkeys and they try to say the bible is false.

The bible clearly tells us the future evolustion of mankind. Mankind Will be resurrected and made new with a new inccoruptible body that does not decay.

someone should tell these people that there name has got to be changed. How can you call yourself an evolutionist if you dont even no the future evolution of mankind. these people spend alot of time preaching to people that the bible is false.

The truth is the bible is the only source that tells us what the futur eevolution of mankind will be like. mankind will evolve with an inccoruptible Christ like body and now mankind can enjoy heaven.

Toolapc
May 13th 2007, 02:29 PM
The earth is flat i dont get it those scriptures have nothing to do with the earth being flat. people just like to munpulate the scripture to sell there false view that has no truth. The bible clearly tells us about the future evolution of mankind.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.

the term pillars in the bible is ment for the faithful saints and prophets when Jesus returns.
The prophets during our time are earn there crown also known as the pillar in Gods house. The faithful saints are also recive a similar crown as the prophets and you can say that they do are pilliars of the Lord. again pillars in the bible has nothin to do with the earth.

revelation 3:10


10"Because you kept my Word in passionate patience, I'll keep you safe in the time of testing that will be here soon, and all over the earth, every man, woman, and child put to the test.
11"I'm on my way; I'll be there soon. Keep a tight grip on what you have so no one distracts you and steals your crown. 12"I'll make each conqueror a pillar in the sanctuary of my God, a permanent position of honor. Then I'll write names on you, the pillars: the Name of my God, the Name of God's City—the new Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven—and my new Name.

pillar in the bible is the crown that all the faithful earn when Jesus Returns.

Exodus 24:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=24&verse=4&version=31&context=verse)
Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.

The twelve tribes repersents the faithful saints when Christ returns.

again pillars in the bible has nothing to do with earth being flat. instead its a term to describe Gods chosen people the saints and they will be a pillar in Gods house.

threebigrocks
May 13th 2007, 05:01 PM
Much of it is simply applying the spiritual representation with it to mean something physically. Hence, twisting scrpiture. People will dig into many, many things, but not dig into scripture. If scripture were studied as intensly as other sources of information, there would be less misunderstandings and more truth.

punk
May 13th 2007, 05:42 PM
Much of it is simply applying the spiritual representation with it to mean something physically. Hence, twisting scrpiture. People will dig into many, many things, but not dig into scripture. If scripture were studied as intensly as other sources of information, there would be less misunderstandings and more truth.


This sounds like what the non-6-day-creation people say when they accuse 6-day-creationists of reading the beginning of Genesis too literally and missing the spiritual point.

To reiterate my point:

In denying that the Bible says the Earth is flat, one is using the same reasoning people use to deny that literal interpretation of creation in Genesis.

If science is good enough to convince us that the Bible doesn't mean what it appears to say regarding the flatness of the Earth, why is it not good enough to convince us that the Bible doesn't mean what it appears to say in the creation accounts?

Teke
May 13th 2007, 06:22 PM
Firstly let me just say that I am disappointed. The reason I posted this thread was to get help on how to defend these claims against critics. Instead the thread has turned into advice why I should not believe in literal 6 day creation and advice why I should not be using it as an evangelical/apologetics tool (I'm making a generalization here. There were some helpful posts which I tremendously appreciate - thank you).

Perhaps this is my fault for not making my intention clear in the first post?

What many of you seem to be forgetting (either intentionally or not, I don't know), is the most important element of the verses I posted: the context of them.


The "most important element of the verses" you posted, is Christ.
So if your focus is Christ, that is the approach you take with your critics. Nothing more, nothing less, just Jesus Christ. Anything more would take the focus off of Him.:saint:


2Cr 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

threebigrocks
May 14th 2007, 01:18 PM
That's exactly my main issue though (sorry if I wasn't more clear in my original post).

Since we know that there are really no literal pillars holding up the earth, than we say that that is metaphor in the Bible. How does one respond when an evolutionist/atheist says that this same thought-process can be applied to Genesis 1 (in terms of it being a metaphor)? Today we know for certain that there are no literal pillars holding the Earth, and in many years from now (when science advances further), we will know that Genesis 1 was also a metaphor. (I don't believe Gen 1 is a metaphor - but this is their reasoning).

I am finding way more references to pillars in the OT, in later chapters of Genesis, that speak of pillars than I remember as of late.

A pillar was both literal and a metaphor where it or they would hold up their altar on which they sacraficed offerings to God. It was also meaning to support, to build upon, to hold up. A pillar of faith you could say.

Foundations of the earth are not as we would lay a foundation for a home. Yet God laid them.

I've got a pillar that supports the corner of an overhang on my house. Yet, my husband is a pillar of strength in my life.

Just because it mentions pillars in Genesis and then again in 1 Samuel and again in Isaiah and again in Ecclestes and so on doesn't mean it's the same meaning or even context! They need to grasp that first and foremost.

And, I will go back and say as I did before - we can't expect them to do so as a non-believer. And, as has been metioned by others here, is all most certainly can be brought around to Christ and Him crucified. ;)

mccain22
May 14th 2007, 03:09 PM
I
Just a note: I am hoping to get some common sense advice on the meanings of these verses. Saying "The Bible is infallible" (although I agree with that), won't help when dealing with unbelievers.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")


:)

would the word sphere have been in existence in 700 bc? honestly, after reading these verses in my bible is seems that skeptics are twisting scripture so they have an excuse to live how they want.

myronQfinkelnopper
May 14th 2007, 07:53 PM
Right on Paul!
I could not have answered a bunch of "Doubting Thomas's" myself any better than you did in post #15. You've just entered the catagory of irrifutable logic.

Thanks for your contribution!http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/jfj.gif

myron

Braves27
May 15th 2007, 05:49 AM
Some of the passages they are using:

Claim: "Earth is flat"

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

(they are implying the Earth has "ends", as in the edges of a rectangle)
Job 38:14
It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment.
(they are implying that the Earth is flat, like the clay under a seal is flat)
The whole book of Job is written poetically, especially this and similar chapters. Read the whole chapter, and I guarantee you'll understand these "interpretations" are absurd.

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")
Besides being contradictory to the last assertion that the earth was described as a rectangle, it's wrong. Of course they're going to say another word should've been used, because that word would make their argument work. The word is used two other times: Proverbs 8:27...He drew a circle/compass on the face of the deep. Job 22:14 ...He walketh in the circuit of heaven.
Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
(they are implying that the Earth must be flat in order to see all the kingdoms from one point. This one I think I can explain myself (this was a vision, and obviously not meant to be taken literally) but your input is welcomed ofcourse)
If the world were flat, do you know of any mountains high enough where you could see all its kingdoms from? That's all I'll say, since you got it yourself.


Claim "Earth sits on pillars/Earth does not move"

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.
(they are implying that the Earth sits on pillars)
This is not implying pillars underneath the earth, but on top of it. Sort of like hills and mountains. Let's look at the one other use of this Hebrew word in the Bible: 1 Samuel 14:4-5:4-And between the passages, by which Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistines' garrison, [there was] a sharp rock on the one side, and a sharp rock on the other side: and the name of the one [was] Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh.The forefront of the one [was] situated northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah.(So, we're dealing with two huge sharp rocks hanging over two cities. Guess where the word pillar is. Situated. It's the same word, translated into English differently. Now let's go back. In chapter 2, Hannah was praying to God, and speaking against arrogance. She talked about the LORD's power to make people rich, and put them in high places;and to make them poor, and bring them low. Look at the dust and the dunghill (ash heap)--two low places. Then they are brough high up out of them--set among princes. The pillars---the high places---of the earth are the LORD's, and He hath set the world---it's people---upon them.


Job 9:6
He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;

(same implication as above)
Different world used for pillars, more along the lines of the implication. But, basically same explanation as the other scriptures from Job. The entire book was recorded in a very poetic language. Read the rest of the chapter. Look at the next verse: Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not. Don't we still use the word sunrise? Even though we know that it is not the sun rising, but the earth moving?

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.
(same implication as above)
The word established should be stable, as in the King James, and that's the key word. The Hebrew word for move means moved out of place, or off course. Left in decay. Shaken. Slipped. Fallen. It does not mean the earth is not in motion.

Claim "Sun moves around the Earth, not the other way around"

Psalm 19:4-6
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

(they are implying the Sun moves around the Earth)
Again, sunrise, sunset....


Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

(same implication as above)

Edit comment removed by_Qbee

Paul_born_again
May 27th 2007, 01:22 AM
Thank you Braves, that did indeed help :)

Studyin'2Show
May 28th 2007, 01:52 AM
I'm surprised I missed this thread earlier, but I think the discussion has moved along fairly well. I would just suggest that we don't need to put God or His word into a box. Our God is bigger than that. There are so many layers to understanding God's word that you can't just apply anything across the board. It's much deeper than that.

God Bless!

Joyfilled
May 29th 2007, 10:55 PM
I am posting in a topic on a message board where the atheists/evolutionists are claiming that literal 6-day creation in the Bible must be taken as metaphor, and that the Bible also states that the Earth is flat (among other things), which should therefore also be taken as a metaphor.

Just a note: I am hoping to get some common sense advice on the meanings of these verses. Saying "The Bible is infallible" (although I agree with that), won't help when dealing with unbelievers.


Some of the passages they are using:

Claim: "Earth is flat"

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

(they are implying the Earth has "ends", as in the edges of a rectangle)

Job 38:14
It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment.

(they are implying that the Earth is flat, like the clay under a seal is flat)

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

(they are implying that the Earth must be flat in order to see all the kingdoms from one point. This one I think I can explain myself (this was a vision, and obviously not meant to be taken literally) but your input is welcomed ofcourse)


Claim "Earth sits on pillars/Earth does not move"

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.

(they are implying that the Earth sits on pillars)

Job 9:6
He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;

(same implication as above)

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.

(same implication as above)

Claim "Sun moves around the Earth, not the other way around"

Psalm 19:4-6
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

(they are implying the Sun moves around the Earth)

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.

(same implication as above)


I understand that some of these (especially the last 2) are from our viewpoint (same as saying "The Sun sets in the West" (where it is infact the Earth spinning and not the Sun moving)). But they are saying that since these are obviously meant to be taken as metaphor, why not Genesis 1?

Any help is appreciated :)

You can only present those verses and explain that the 4 corners of the earth in the bible means direction, north, south, east, and west. But since atheists don't have the Holy Spirit, then they will never believe you. :cry:

joztok
Jun 3rd 2007, 09:01 AM
I am posting in a topic on a message board where the atheists/evolutionists are claiming that literal 6-day creation in the Bible must be taken as metaphor, and that the Bible also states that the Earth is flat (among other things), which should therefore also be taken as a metaphor.

Certain books of the bible or things said can imply creative meaning or historical meaning.



Some of the passages they are using:
Claim: "Earth is flat"

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

(they are implying the Earth has "ends", as in the edges of a rectangle)

Job 38:14
It takes on form like clay under a seal, And stands out like a garment.

(they are implying that the Earth is flat, like the clay under a seal is flat)

Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

(they are implying that the word "sphere" should have been used, not "circle")
Job 38:13 is prophetic as it echoes the vision that John sees in Revelations.
Job 38:14 and Isaiah 40:22 are poetic, adding a particular feel to what is being said. Observe the words 'like'. They are likened to something so we can relate to the scenario.
In the original Hebrew, i don't think the word is circle! I think I heard an argument stem from this scripture passage that argued that this was proof that the bible supports the truth that the world was round.



Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

(they are implying that the Earth must be flat in order to see all the kingdoms from one point. This one I think I can explain myself (this was a vision, and obviously not meant to be taken literally) but your input is welcomed ofcourse)
People have had outer body experiences due to satanic or spiritual attacks. After being out in the desert for forty days and nights without eating, I believe he was vulnerable and Satan 'took' Him to a place of such testing in the spiritual.




1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, And He has set the world upon them.

(they are implying that the Earth sits on pillars)

Job 9:6
He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;

(same implication as above)

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth. The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved.

(same implication as above)

1 Sam 2:8 Is a quote taken from a prayer that was quite possibly a prayer song. The song opens up with 'My heart rejoices'. It's quite possible she sung a prayer to God. In this sense, poetic licence has been used to express her joy and foundation in God and her people.

This is the same with Job 9:6.
Another translation for pillars is foundation. But nevertheless, this is also a use of poetic license because if you look at Job 9:5 it says:

He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger.

With 1 Chronicles 16:30, it is the same again! This is a song by King David! Poetic license can be used! It's interesting to note that this is a common theme in biblical poetry. 'Foundations of the earth shall be shaken or not be moved'. It implies the strength or might of God!




Psalm 19:4-6
Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race. Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.


Song- poetic licence!


Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose.
Proverbial lamentation. Poetic licence available!

If you compare the book of Genesis to the Book of Isaiah or the Book of Psalms, Ecclesiastes or Job, you will find that Genesis is VERY layed out and matter of fact. In comparison with the other books, quite poetic and very colourful and image-filled.

Urim
Jun 8th 2007, 02:44 PM
Perhaps it's helpful to know Christianity did not adopt a flat Earth concept. [Maybe some did, but I would be interested in knowing who they are.]

A spherical Earth view came almost 400 years before Christ. Eudoxus (~380 BC) promoted it, and Aristotle (~350 BC) refined it and made it convincing. A sphere is a more perfect form. They had not problem noticing things seemed to move vertically up or down (rocks go down, air & fire up). If they fall toward a point or source of natural order, you can only have a spherical shape. They knew water thrown into the air will form spherical shapes for suspected similar reasons.

There were other arguments, too. Aristotle noted that the stars moved southward as one travelled northward, further supporting the idea of a spherical Earth. The amount of shift compared to the amount of travel would reveal the Earth's physical dimensions.

Plato and others estimated the circumference of the Earth. Plato seems to have got it right at 40,000 km (he used different units of course), but Plato, reportedly, only guessed at it. [That is pretty odd he got it right, though.]

Then came Erastothenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy) (~ 250BC). He noticed how vertical objects cast shadows that varied in length in different parts on Earth when viewed at the same time of day. Simple geometry gave him a result within 2% of actual (assuming this Egyptian used the Egyptian "stade" as opposed to the one used in Greece).

Interestingly, the meter and kilometer were orginally defined by the Earth's circumference (pole to pole) as 40,000 km.

Other evidence, such as sailing ship mask sightings, further helped establish a non-flat planet.

Today, the term flat is a relative term. If you pour a large flat concrete slab using a laser, you will have a bird-bath in the middle because you did not shape it to the round Earth and stay perpendicular to the gravitation field, thus the edges will be slightly higher than the center. [When new sewer lines were placed using lasers (late 1970's), many lines had to be pulled-up because they did not take this into consideration (~3/8" per 500', IIRC).]

The point is to see issues like these in more of a relative sense. The observers of the Bible spoke honestly in the terms they understood in order to convey the message intended. I don't think there is a single passage in the Bible that is inteneded to teach a scientific fact; why should it? Only because objective elements exist in the Bible does science have some scrutiny over. Yet, many that appear objective are often mere tangible tools to help convey a far grander view where God is involved.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 8th 2007, 04:13 PM
Urim,

As always your insight is appreciated. However, when you say that the Bible is not intended to teach science, that is not accurate. The word science, in its purest form, simply means knowledge. Therefore, the Bible is most definitely intended to teach science; the science of God!

God Bless!

Urim
Jun 8th 2007, 09:49 PM
As always your insight is appreciated. Thanks, though, like "science", "appreciated" can become rather colorful in definition. :) Nice to get a chance to pop in. I missed y'all.


The word science, in its purest form, simply means knowledge. Therefore, the Bible is most definitely intended to teach science; the science of God! I agree that the term science in the Bible - used twice: Daniel and Timothy - meant simply knowledge, but science today means more than that as we have gained a plethora of physical and mental tools to help us deal with others and life (no doubt, as intended by God). The term science today should be in the context of the scientific method which greatly limits science to the objective realm only, and restricts what it can say about the religious world, or any subjective realm.

Science can say much as to whether or not the Earth is flat, yet it can not tell us how to interpret even those few scriptures, though it helps.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 9th 2007, 02:37 AM
I agree that the term science in the Bible - used twice: Daniel and Timothy - meant simply knowledge, but science today means more than that as we have gained a plethora of physical and mental tools to help us deal with others and life (no doubt, as intended by God). The term science today should be in the context of the scientific method which greatly limits science to the objective realm only, and restricts what it can say about the religious world, or any subjective realm.

Science can say much as to whether or not the Earth is flat, yet it can not tell us how to interpret even those few scriptures, though it helps.But shouldn't it still mean knowledge; what we know? Things that we do not know should NOT be science. They can be theory that may at some point help lead to science (knowledge). But as long as it's just something we think and not something we know it should not be considered science. Maybe that is the problem. If science was limited to things that we know and the rest was considered speculation that has yet to become science, this would not be such a controversial issue. That's my two cents! :D

God Bless!

Urim
Jun 9th 2007, 04:26 AM
But shouldn't it still mean knowledge; what we know? Things that we do not know should NOT be science. They can be theory that may at some point help lead to science (knowledge). But as long as it's just something we think and not something we know it should not be considered science. Maybe that is the problem. If science was limited to things that we know and the rest was considered speculation that has yet to become science, this would not be such a controversial issue. That's my two cents! :D
That is pretty good reasoning. To limit science to the knowable is a good thing. Like having accurate speedometers in our cars that do not try to tell us if we are going too fast or slow, but are dedicated to giving us accuracy, yet in a limited way. Let us drivers decide values.

You are likely closer to true science than someone like Dawkins who extends science, or knowledge, beyond its imposed limits: extrapolated science. Even scientific theory is just a modeling process but one that makes claims that can be tested and, if wrong, used to reject the theory.