Inconsistency of literalists vs science

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

As a matter of fact, this is false. The earliest of peoples going back in history all knew the earth was a sphere. Moreover, Jesus himself makes reference to the earth's spherical shape:

Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two [men] in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two [women] shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Flat earth... or domed earth is a modern idea that wasn't even imagined until those who wished to poke holes in the Bible scientifically came upon the scene.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Pastor Larry is absolutely correct. Figures of speech are used in literal communication ALL the time. He gives a great example of the weather man saying 'sunrise'. When he talks about the 'sunrise' he isn't giving an allegorical newscast... he giving us literal information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n2Geocentrism.asp

Actually, as those links will show you, flat earth is a modern idea. Peoples going back into antiquity believed in a spherical earth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v20n2_mystery_ancient_man.asp

The truly astonishing feats of the ancient world, requiring a high degree of intelligence, knowledge and skill, were not only in architecture and civil engineering. The ancient Mayans were meticulous time keepers. Without computers or sophisticated measuring equipment they knew the length of the solar year to be 365.2420 days long. Only recently have astronomers calculated it to be 365.2422 days long.

The Mayans worked out that 405 full moons occurred in a period of 11,960 days; modern research shows it to be 11,959.888 days. They calculated the synodic period of Venus at 584 days; current science shows it to be 583.92 days [the synodic period is the phase cycle as observed on Earth—the time between successive appearances of a given phase, e.g., crescent. The Mayans of course were not familiar with Galileo’s explanation that the phases of Venus could be explained by its orbit around the Sun (224.7 Earth days)—called the siderial period, i.e. relative to the stellar background]. These minute margins of error, confirmed only with the use of modern technology, reveal an amazing degree of accuracy on the part of these ancient cultures.

Interestingly, considering the Mayans’ obsession with accurate timekeeping, the Mayan calendar apparently began from a creation date about 3114 BC. The Mayans also excelled at mathematics, using a positional system, similar to today’s, that was less clumsy than that used by the Romans in Europe.

 

Answer not a fool according to his folly.

To answer your question under the terms you present would be to 'answer a fool according to his folly'. You set up a hypothecial that isn't true and ask us to prove it.

First of all... it ISN'T true that people accepted any sort of flat earth interpretation at any time until within the last several hundred years. People lived in a 3 dimentional world ... everything they saw from apples, to oranges, to rocks, to the moon, to the sun were all round objects in 3 dimentions. We can see from the art of ancient peoples, for example, that the same attention to 3D is given to the sun and moon as is given to people, animals, fruit etc. So you are going to have to proove to us that people thought anything otherwise.

Therefore within the context that there are 3D people living in a 3D world describing 3D objects we can take the literal, plain, or normal interpretation which makes the most sense.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Gup

Each time you post this link I am going to invite people to check it out so that they can see that it does not address what the Jews believed at all. You seem to be missing that point each time. I have in the past presented you with plenty of information that shows that the ancient Jews and the others in the region all had a common geology consisting of a flat earth, surrounded by a great sea (the "deep"), and covered in a fixed dome (the "firmament"). You counter this assertion by telling us what everybody other than the Jews believed.

 

UTE -

You have yet to post any credible information whatsoever to even remotely give the impression that this is what the Jews thought.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that the 'early gentile church' is primarily based on the teachings of Paul who staunchly supported a literal Genesis, as well as Noah's global flood. They got their teachings FROM the Jews... and they didn't believe in a flat earth or dome.

DOME http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp
EARTH http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv14n3flat_earth.asp

 

Gup, care to address the original topic of this thread? If you read it carefully, you'll see that it isn't about the shape of the earth, but rather the fact that the earth rotates.

 

Certainly.


Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Here we have God creating a source of light and separating that light from darkness. Once light and darkness are created, we have the first passage of time - it says evening, morning indicating that the light was in 'view' during it's creation and passed out of view in the format of 'evening' (evening before morning) and then morning. These words describe the rotation of the earth as you cannot have evening or morning without movement. On day 4 of creation, God placed the SUN to represent the day and the moon to represent (rule over) the night.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Moreover we see from other verses that not only is the earth round, but that it moves in a specified circuit -

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Pro 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass [circuit or circle] upon the face of the depth:

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle [circuit, compass] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

So we see that the Bible advocates the earth is a sphere that moves in a circuit. Couple this with the references to evening and morning and day and night and we are starting to see the big picture. We definately get a good idea that the Jews definately knew the earth was round and not a flat earth.

 

Note the jump in logic: you cannot have evening or morning without movement, so this must describe the movement of the earth. This assumption is made based on what Gup knows of science, not on what the text says. Of course, we could also have evening and morning because of movement of the light source in relation to Earth -- at least, hypothetically we could, but science has shown that this isn't the case for Earth. But, using Gup's logic: "The earth rotates around the moon because you cannot have moonrise or moonset without movement."

I don't want to misinterpret you, Gup, so which of these verses do you read as stating that Earth moves in a specified circuit? Is it Genesis 1:2, where "the earth was without form, and void" and "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"? This seems to describe the Spirit of God moving (or hovering), not Earth, and no hint is given of the movement being circuitous. Is it Proverbs 8:27, where God placed a compass on the face of the waters? Since the depths of the sea are part of Earth, if this is an orbit it would seem to be a rather constricted one. You may want to cross-reference Job 26:10 where the same imagery is used to define either the boundary of light and darkness (NIV, NASB, ESV) or the boundary of the seas (KJV, NKJV).

Or, is Isaiah 40:22 the verse that shows Earth's orbit, where it says that God "sitteth upon the circle of the earth"? If so, then one of the most common prooftexts for a round Earth is gone, since that means the "circle" in this verse is actually talking about the "circuit" of Earth and not its shape. Also, why would God be described as sitting on Earth's orbit? If the "circle" in this verse actually refers to the dome of the heavens (the firmament in Genesis 1) then that seems to be a much more appropriate place for God to sit in a poetic passage. (It also has the advantage of being stationary in relation to Earth, unlike a point in orbit.)

I realize you think the literal meaning of these verses is clear and that anyone who reads them should see exactly what you see. But, I don't. Can you explain how you get a description of Earth's orbit from these verses?

Note the claim that is made. Because Gup interprets those passages as proving Earth is round and rotates, that proves that this is what the passages really mean, and so the Jews must have known that Earth is round and rotates too, since they also had access to those passages and must have interpreted them the same way.

Gup's claim is proved wrong by history. His interpretation of those passages is more creative (although vague) than he gives himself credit for, and many before him interpreted them far differently. In fact, many Christians and Jews in centuries past (and present) would probably have found his interpretations as dubious and unbelievable as he now finds theirs.

 

It has already been explained that EVEN TODAY we have "sunrise and sunset" times published without requiring that God be in error, or that the Bible be in error, or that the weather service be a bunch of flat-earthers.

It seems to me that evolutionism is "one long game" played with the Bible in both OT and NT "trying" to justifiy the abuse that evolutionists make of certain Bible texts.

But AS I HAVE ASKED before - WHY go play all those games with the Bible when you are so ready to Admit that God IS USING Creationist terms and does NOT expect the people of Bible times to "get evolutionism" from the text (because they are too stupid to be told the truth -- or whatever reason you wish for this to be the case) --??? Once you admit this is what it IS SAYING and IS intending to be understood - WHY compound your own position's problem by trying to ALSO find other areas where you think we should disbelieve the Bible?

Or do you do that to argue that "everybody else Disbelieves the Bible in some places so why can't WE"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

It has already been explained that EVEN TODAY we have "sunrise and sunset" times published without requiring that God be in error, or that the Bible be in error, or that the weather service be a bunch of flat-earthers.
</font>[/QUOTE]

Hmmm! This from someone who takes the view "any old excuse will do IF it is in favor of the junk science of evolutionism".

Why do you 'seek any old contradiction with scripture' that you can find in "defense of evolutionism"?

Why "pretend" that the SAME phrase we use today COULD NOT be used in GOD's word without making God a liar?

Your "evolutionism-at-all-costs" approach is baffeling.

Choose God's Word instead.

You seek to "invent" your "failed scripture" scenarios at every turn.

Case in point...

As I said your appeals to "Failed scripture" are almost as impressive as your belief in "junk science".

Indeed it IS. You CLAIM the Bible has failed in your example above - AS IF God is bound by pagan philosophy of Bible times. You cling to that Bible-failed model EVEN though the EXAMPLE phrase that is "supposed to nail His coffin" is in fact the SAME phrase we use today!!

What a wake up call!!

Then you cling to the myth that junk science is a key part of REAL sciences today -- AS IF dreaming it and repeating it "often enough" makes it true.

Almost as "nice" as story as the "HORSE SERIES" or the STORY that Archaeopteryx is NOT a bird but an INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN Reptiles and Birds.

In evolutionism's halls of junk science the "stories" never end.

You YOUSELF claimed it is a "Contradiction" of how you choose to interpret scripture!!

I am simply observing your "strategy" in contriving that failed-Bible example and how you "suppose" it is helping your case to go down that alley.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Almost as "nice" as story as the "HORSE SERIES" or the STORY that Archaeopteryx is NOT a bird but an INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN Reptiles and Birds."

The horse series is a wonderful example of a transitional species, your smoke and mirrors on the other thread where you continually misquote the scientists notwithstanding. Archaeopteryx IS a great single example of a transitional species, your attempts on the other thread to misconstrue the thoughts of the scientists involved notwithstanding.

 

The point remains - when atheist evolutionists give us "sunset and sunrise" times today - we seem to be ok with it.

When God does it - you want to use it as an "excuse" to undercut the Word of God.

When Einstein tells us that motion CAN legitimately be "described" in terms of the reference plain of the observer - we have no trouble at all with that. But when God does that very thing for mankind - you claim it is a chance to undercut His word.

The point remains. The Creationist language of the Gen 1-2:3 text is "obvious".

Even evolutionists here have admitted that.

Wake up call!

In Christ,

Bob

 

There you go again, BR, completely misrepresenting what I am saying in this post. I claim it is RIGHT to accept the old wording that people used to apply to a literal belief and still, today, apply them in a non-literal fashion.

I join you in doing exactly that!

DID YOU HEAR ME YET?

But now in doing so, you and I are together breaking the rule you set for me regarding evolution. That is, the rule that we must never, never accept the findings of science when the literal teaching of the bible says something else. Because we are doing it right there.
</font>[/QUOTE]This is a perfect example of the bait and switch misdirection you are appealing to.

Initially you "claim" that we are BOTH doing the same thing.

In fact I SHOW that the Bible terms are VALID even today - in REAL life where Einstein AND our atheist evolutionists scientist STILL speak in the SAME terms of "local plane of reference" when it comes to the movement of the sun. "Sunrise and Sunset" etc.

BUT THEN you claim that this term we USE TODAY is a "contradiction of science" as if RELATIVE motion is "A contradiction of science"!!

Paul said -- That is, the rule that we must never, never accept the findings of science when the literal teaching of the bible says something else.


Notice we could NEVER claim that the atheist evolutionist today that gives us "Sunrise and Sunset" times each day is rejecting findings of science by making that statment!!

When Einstein tells us of the principle of relative motion described from the reference point of the observe (hence: Sunrise and Sunset) we do not charge HIM with rejecting findings of science !!

But at the drop of the hat you will take that VERY example and charge God with rejecting findings of science in His WORD!!!


You twist this dubious idea back on the scripture and claim "PRESTO! The Bible contradicts science!!".

Why take such a flawed approach to scripture? Because "obviously" you "NEED" to do undermine the text to get by with your "creationism is wrong though God's Word promotes it" idea.

And your proof? "Sunrise and Sunset"???!!!

This "practice" is so opposed to both science and exegesis that it is impossible to understand how anyone could embrace it... yet I think you do find an audience for it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Clearly you are at a loss to form a response to the argument.

#1 Einstein NEVER said "relative motion is an unnatural, artificial way to describe motion". IN fact velocity vectors can be calculated USING relative motion to get valid results. This is not "pretend science!".

You are simply foundering here - trying to come up with something that resolves to "The Bible is still wrong EVEN If Einstein uses the SAME principle".

Your difficulty is obvious here - I don't envy you this challenge of escaping and misdirecting this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point remains. The Creationist language of the Gen 1-2:3 text is "obvious".
Even evolutionists here have admitted that.
Wake up call!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by "literal meaning" we have "the Real" the "Exegetically SOUND" the "ONE The - real first order primary audience read" the one INTENDED by God and by the Author --

(And this from the Christian EVOLUTIONISTS on this board).

So no need to "pretend" that the real meaning is not the literal meaning.

Classic! God SAID He rested on the Seventh-day and the evolutionist responds "REALLY? I doubt it!"

Do you think "God REALLY became a little baby 2000 years ago?"

Do you think God REALLY had a fish swallow Jonah?

Do you think God REALLY raised Christ from the dead?

Do you think God REALLY suffered and died for us on the Cross?

Do you think God REALLY cursed snakes??!

Do you think God REALLY said in His Word "For Adam was FIRST created and THEN EVE" and "Eve was first tempted and fell into sin - and then Adam"??

Adam REAL? Eve REAL? The fall REAL? God "creating WITHOUT starvation, extinction, carnage?"" REALLY??

Not according to Galation or Mercury or Atheist Evolutionists or Bible Believing Christian Creationists.

We have ALL groups AGREEING that this is EXACTLY what God conveyed and that it was given as a creationist story on purpose - since the people of Bible cultures (by christian evolutionist standards) were too stupid to be told the truth.

That is a FAR CRY from saying - God was teaching evolutionism but Bible Believing christians today are simply interpreting it wrong.

You are running out of ways to misdirect as more and more of your own group admits to the obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul writes:
We agree as to what the literal meaning of the words are.

We disagree as to whether the ultisate meaning is to be interpreted literally, that's all.

Leave the Barbarian out of it. He agrees with Paul. It's true, but not literal.