New China find. What say young earthers?

[RAdam]

Let me make this point. The bible being accurate on all things which it testifies is vitally important. You say the bible wasn't mean to be a scientific document. However, if the bible isn't accurate in terms of the science and history it contains, then how can we trust it when it tells us that we've been saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord? How can we trust it when it tells us we have eternal life through His work? How can we trust it when it tells us that we are preserved in the hand of Christ, and shall be raised from the dead one day and have our bodies glorified and live in immortal glory with Him? For us to trust the bible in one point, it must be accurate in all points. Otherwise, it is just another book.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"I had to laugh at this one. if you steatch out a flat surface infinately distance is no longer definable. If you have a sphere it comes right back to you."

Again, if you stand at the equator and head due West you will never stop heading due West. You will keep going. East and West are infinitely far apart. However, if you stand at the equator and head due North, you will eventually reach the North Pole. Once you pass it you will begin heading due South. North and South, then, on a globe with a North/South oriented axis, are a definable distance apart. East and West aren't.

On the circle of the earth thing, are you serious? "It doesn't say sphere." Was there even a Hebrew word for sphere? Obviously, sitting on the circle of the earth indicates that the earth is not flat.

Of course, I see you didn't address my points about the water cycle and gravity.

To address your points:

First, the sun moving comment. How many times have you heard statements and questions like these: "The sun is peaking over the horizon." "What is the position of the sun in the sky?" "The sun is directly overheard." "The sun is at 3:00." "Then out came the sun and dried up all the rain." "The sun is really bright today." "How much longer until the sun goes down." Now, all of these statements are, in an absolute sense, incorrect. However, we, as people who understand that the solar system is sun-centered, still make them frequently. Why? Because we are speaking in a relative sense. Relative to our perspective (though we know the earth revolves around the sun) the sun moves through our sky. It rises in the east and sets in the west. Thus, as we observe the movement of the earth around the sun (absolute sense) we see the sun move through our sky (relative sense). If a person wrote a book today describing the sun as moving through our sky, would that prove the author was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? Obviously not since we are educated of that fact.

Now, to the quote from 1 Chronicles, the text says, "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." It's not talking about not moving in any way, shape, or form but rather to the stability of the earth. I could say, the earth shall not move out of it's current rotation around the sun.

Now, to your ends of the earth point I will quote another usage in scripture. Isaiah 41:5 - "The isles saw it, and feared; the ends of the earth were afraid, drew near, and came." Is this text referring to the literal, physical dimensions of the earth, or to faraway nations. The phrase "ends of the earth" are used quite frequently in scripture, and again it is also used by modern man who is well aware of the fact that the earth is not flat.

The text from Genesis seems to support the idea of a vapor canopy that surrounded the earth before the flood, which many creation scientists believe existed.

It's disheartening to see people run to extremes. A literal view of the scriptures doesn't mean that every single word is taken as we literally today in our society understand it. A literal view of the bible means this: 1) we believe the bible to be true and 2) we take the bible literally where we can, understanding that it also has figurative language as well. For example, "he shall grow up before him as a tender plant." Obviously Jesus Christ wasn't a literal plant, but is compared to a tender plant. God is plain and literal in creation, and we should beleive Him literally here. Also, Paul believed and preached literal creation and based doctrine on this (original sin in Romans 5), so if Paul misinterpreted the bible in terms of creation, what else did he misinterpret?

I didn't say anything about the water cycle because it was observed correctly they the writers of the bible. The point is they based their writings on their observation and point of view as it was then. Using your own critic method as explained in your post the 6 day creation account doesn't need be literal. If you suggest that it needs be then following your critic method again you must believe in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, etc.. there is not extremety here. Just consistency. The bible is speaking in relation to the observation of the writer. You just don't want to admit that. Think for instance. Moses is traditionally thought to have written the Torah. So the information must have been passed orally in methods that were common of the day. Like Atra hasis and Gilgamesh the biblical account is using the same literary form. Doesn't mean its not true just not in the sense you're taking it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me make this point. The bible being accurate on all things which it testifies is vitally important. You say the bible wasn't mean to be a scientific document. However, if the bible isn't accurate in terms of the science and history it contains, then how can we trust it when it tells us that we've been saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord? How can we trust it when it tells us we have eternal life through His work? How can we trust it when it tells us that we are preserved in the hand of Christ, and shall be raised from the dead one day and have our bodies glorified and live in immortal glory with Him? For us to trust the bible in one point, it must be accurate in all points. Otherwise, it is just another book.

You bring up a good question. God uses people to do his will as can be seen in the bible. He does't possess them and make them dictate. He inspires them through the Holy Spirit using their gifts and abilities. David was a poor example of a man save in one point. He loved God. But would we follow his example on child rearing? I hope not. Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties indicates that Inerrant does not equal impeccable. There are all sorts of transcription errors through out the bible. Does it make the message less real? Or less truthful? Not at all. The bible is truthful about science and history as it was understood at the time of its writing. I'm sure if one of the prophets knew about black holes at the center of galaxies he would used it as an analogy for something. But they did not and thus there is no mention of them. The bible is the story of Salvation. The miracles described there happened. God created the Heavens and the Earth. God created man. God saved Noah and his family from the flood and is liken to a type of baptism. God led the Israelites through the sea. Does it matter if its the Read Sea or The Reed Sea? Not at all. The story doesn't change. Was Ramseys II the Pharoh at the time of Moses? Most likely not. Would there have been a city of Rameseys in Egypt when the bible describes it? No. But certainly that city was there when that particular passage was writen as is noted by the observer. Truth is truth. I find that my faith is not so thin as to be disuaded by an unknowledgable observer nor by a transcription error.

 

[RAdam]

So Job observed that the earth hung on nothing (gravity)? And just how did he observe this? Was he the first man to fly into outer space? I must have missed that.

So, following your reasoning, water vapor was observable to a man that lived 3500 years ago. Not only did this man miraculously observe that the earth rested on something invisible to our eyes (gravity) but he also observed water vapor. Job must have been the greatest scientist that ever lived.

 

[RAdam]

Again though, how can you trust that Paul was not simply stating something relative to his own time but not absolute when discussing eternal salvation through the grace of God? If everything is relative, where does the line in absolutes get drawn? The problem with your view is it undermines the integrity of the bible. If I can't trust Moses to accurately tell me about what happened when the children of Israel came up out of Egypt, or when Noah was saved from a worldwide flood, or when God created all things, then how can I trust Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Jude? What if they are relaying relative beliefs? What if they are wrong?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So Job observed that the earth hung on nothing (gravity)? And just how did he observe this? Was he the first man to fly into outer space? I must have missed that.

So, following your reasoning, water vapor was observable to a man that lived 3500 years ago. Not only did this man miraculously observe that the earth rested on something invisible to our eyes (gravity) but he also observed water vapor. Job must have been the greatest scientist that ever lived.

Now you're being silly. The Egyptians use water and its evaporation rate to create the Pyramids at Giza. People weren't stupid. Just like the Greeks were able to create the appreance of strait lines on their great Acropolis using complex mathmatics. Job was obviously wealthy. He may indeed have been a genius. After all without walking the whole circumferance of the Earth aristotle came pretty close to determining it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Again though, how can you trust that Paul was not simply stating something relative to his own time but not absolute when discussing eternal salvation through the grace of God? If everything is relative, where does the line in absolutes get drawn? The problem with your view is it undermines the integrity of the bible. If I can't trust Moses to accurately tell me about what happened when the children of Israel came up out of Egypt, or when Noah was saved from a worldwide flood, or when God created all things, then how can I trust Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Jude? What if they are relaying relative beliefs? What if they are wrong?

Salvation isn't science. Jesus is a real person who actually said the things that were recorded. IT was correctly observed. Not only that But Jesus ensured the Apostles knew what he was tallking about. Its a nonsequitur. I think you should spend time with Archers Encyclopedia it might clear up a few things.

 

[RAdam]

How do you know He really said those things? How do you know those things were recorded correctly?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How do you know He really said those things? How do you know those things were recorded correctly?

We have four different accounts based on eyewitnesses. Better than most historical documents.

 

[RAdam]

Yeah, but what if those things were just handed down through oral tradition and some of it was just what seemed right to them at the time?

 

[SBCPreacher]

We have four different accounts based on eyewitnesses. Better than most historical documents.

We have One faithful account of creation - the only One what was there at the time. I still choose what He says over what you and others who believe the same you do say.

 

[Crabtownboy]

We have One faithful account of creation - the only One what was there at the time. I still choose what He says over what you and others who believe the same you do say.

Not really. There are two creation stories in Genesis. The important thing is both say God did it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yeah, but what if those things were just handed down through oral tradition and some of it was just what seemed right to them at the time?

Just to be clear what is it you're trying to say exactly? Things were taught to the Apostles Orally who in turn taught things orally to the first churches. The gosple of Mark wasn't thought to be written until 55AD over 20 years since Jesus died, Rose, and acended into heaven. Strangley enough the Didache was written close to the same period. Mark supposidly got his information directly from Peter and a few others Luke actually did a lot of research. So, I'm not certain what you're trying to say. Each of the Gospels were written in a way to emphasize the Theology Jesus taught rather than an attempt to be a biography in the modern sence (the closest being Luke). all the churches had consistent teachings so if one church went off on its own outside the orally passed on teachings the community of believers would know. There are the writings of the apostles. Keep in mind that they didn't have pocket NT then. (It wasn't even entirely written as yet) The LXX or the greek version of the OT was the most used document but only a minority of believers could actually read it. So, what are you trying to say?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Not really. There are two creation stories in Genesis. The important thing is both say God did it.

No TWO creation stories....one is general and one"the same" is more detailed.

 

[LadyEagle]

I am thinking of kicking this over to another forum since it has clearly been derailed from the OP. When I decide what forum to move it to, I will leave a redirect.

Lady Eagle
Moderator

 

[TC]

Chinese technology is among the most advanced of the ancient societies. It is not surprising to me that someone there found pottery that they claim is the oldest. I lean towards a young Earth, but their dating of the pottery does not bother me at all. The Bible does not say how old the Earth is. All the Bible says is that God created in the beginning. Too many Young Earth Creationists (YECers) have latched on to a mans theory from the 1600's. This guy decides to add up the number of years in the genealogy of Genesis 5 adds it to the genealogy of Genesis 11 and then counts back from Abraham and then declares that the creation was October 20 in the year 4004 BC at 9 AM. Now many YECers are making belief in this man's date setting a thing that fellowship hinges on. They say that if we do not believe that Genesis 1 and 2 happened exactly 6000 years ago that we do not believe the Bible. That is utter foolishness. Since the Bible does not say when the beginning was, I can believe the Bible without swallowing his date setting method hook, line, and s(t)inker.