Morning PlainSense
Let me try to start working my way through your posts.
"
Thanks for the tone of your last two replies."
Yes. Again sorry if you thought I was hostile towards you. I, too, much prefer conversation.
"
Sorry, I have just come back to the question you asked, to quote it before my answer, and for some reason I had it in my mind that you had asked a "flat earth" question, so that is what I have "answered". I will have to look at the earth rotating around the sun question another day (It's great to have your beliefs challenged in a calm, measured debate like this, but I really must do some work - it's a good job I work for myself and write my own pay-cheque!) I hope you'll find this "flat earth" reply interesting anyway."
These things are always interesting.
Yes, my main question was about geocentrism though I think that I did mention a flat earth in passing somewhere. My opinion is that it is difficult to make a case for a flat earth from the Bible that is convincing but that it is even harded to make a convincing case for a spherical earth. I also think that it is hard to make a case for an earth that orbits the sun but is fairly easy to make a case for geocentrism.
You of course have Joshua where the sun stands still during the battle.
In Habakkuk 3:11 you have "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation..."
In Psalms 19 you have "In them he has set a
tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and
its circuit to the end of them."
There are others to mention, but that is enough to get th idea. It is always the sun moving, the sun going to a place of hiding at night, the sun traveling in a "circuit."
"
Firstly, it does not matter one iota what people in antiquity believed. For example, the fact that Daniel wrote things that he didn't understand (12:8), doesn't mean that what he wrote was not Divinely Inspired. It doesn't matter if Isaiah, or anyone else, believed that the earth was flat, round, triangular, or whatever shape. The important thing is what Scripture actually says, because if we believe that Scripture is infallible (and I do), then it must be seen to be correct in all things."
This is sort of my view on such things, but I do not know if we are coming to the same conclusion.
My view would be that the writers of the scriptures were inspired to write by God but not necessarily dictated to. If you take time to do a little digging, it is not too hard to find what the beliefs were about the world by the ancients living in the middle east. A quick search found this
http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/commoncosmos.htm
though I did not read much of it. The picture at the top was what I was looking for.
Now, these people believed in a flat, circular earth, surrounded by a great ocean ("the deep"). The earth was covered by a fixed dome on which the star were attached and through which the sun moved. The dome separated the earth and the "deep" from the waters above the dome.
Now, I think you see these beliefs represented in the writings of the biblical authors. All the way back to Genesis you see mention of the firmament and the deep and the waters above and below. In various places you see mentions of the stars falling from the dome. You mentions of rain being caused by opening windows in the firmament. You see the tree in Daniel that grows so tall as to be seen in all the earth. (OK, it was dream.) Even in the Gospels you see Jesus being taken to a mountain tall enough to see all the kingdoms of the world.
Now I consider none of this to be mistakes. I just see this as their writings being colored by what they "knew," by their culture. The same thing would happen today if you or I were to become a writer in any context. What we believe would color our writings.
But the important part is the message being delievered. And it is perfect. Now my own personal view would be that the creation account falls into a similar vein. I think that the presentation of the creation account was meant to serve several purposes. One was to establish the one true God in a sea of polytheistic beliefs. Another was to establish God as the creator of all. Another was to show the sinful nature of man and his need for salvation while contrasting that with the perfect nature of God. One was to show that man is special and has a unique relationship with God. It sets up everything that follows. But just as God allowed some of their beliefs to color their writings I think that the creation account was not to be literal but to serve a purpose.
Admittedly, my views, too, are colored. I find that the evidence for an old earth and for evolution to be incontrovertible. Since the Bible will not disagree with reality, I find any interpretation that does not accept these facts as flawed by definition. It is just the way it is.
"
Sorry UTEOTW, this sounds like a kop-out to me, where's the Scripture that tells us that "God used evolution"? I don't think there is any. "
I don't think there is any in a direct sense either. There may be hints. It does say to let the "earth bring forth" life. There may be other clues that it is not literal, not the least of which is a literal morning and evening for several days without a sun to give us a literal morning and evening. In addition, the creation account is repeated in chapter 2 with a different order. In a non-literal reading this is not a problem but it is a bit of a contradiction if this is meant to be a blow by blow account.
That is weak, I know. But the possibility exists. I firmly believe that the correct interpretation of the Bible and of the Creation will not conflict.
"
but the Scriptures have been around in various forms for thousands of years. It sounds like you are implying that God allowed former generations to believe that He created everything in six literal twenty-four hour days, but that He actually has saved the "real truth" for 20th/21st century scientists!"
Depends on what you mean by truth and the intent of the verses. It would not be the first time that someone has reinterpreted scripture based on scientific findings.
"
If this is what you mean it is a very arrogant and elitist stance."
Not arrogant. This is a search for the truth. I have two things which I am convinced are true. There must be a way to harmonize them.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "elitist" but I am not sure that it is always a bad thing. It may be a bit eliteist to only trust a doctor to diagnose my medical problems but there is a good reason for doing so. Some people just have more information about a given subject than we do. It is OK to listen to these people.
Well, that gets through the first post of yours. Off to work.
Ute
