Monad

Surely if creationists were consistent they would not be creationists?

buckshot23

After reading this latest response I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith. I believe I have given you a good answer but you choose to ignore it. That is your choice. I am going to give you one more chance and respond to some of this last "response".
Yes. Many texts could suggest just about anything. The mere fact that these passages may suggest geocentrism is irrelevant. It doesn't teach this.
Ignored.:thumbs:
Let me ask you a question. Do you think it is justified in taking anything metaphorically from the bible if one believes it came from God?
Do you agree one must take the whole passage as a whole and not pick and choose what specific points we want from it?
No I don't. If the people of the time believed something like geocentrism that doesn't mean the text actually teaches this. "Suggesting" it is a whole other thing.
No I haven't. It seems that this is a reference point statement again much like sunrise and sunset is. When a person walks on the earth it does seem to be unmoving and I believe this is what the psalmist is referring to.

:huh: Maybe it is you who is just not accepting a reasonable answer. Establish that Genesis should be taken metaphorically and I will play along.
Sure it is but the text clearly suggests this. That is the point being made! I have demonstrated that something, at least should be taken metaphorically in the passage. Now do you agree that taking the other portion about the earth literally may not be warrented?

Just saying what the bible says is an easily demonstrated fact. I cannot argue against its existence. I see no reason to make a point of it.

Frankly I don't see the relevance in the text "suggesting" that the earth is the center of the universe. The same text "suggests" that God is a rock and you reject a literal interpretation of that. Are you being consistant?
:huh: I didn't. I made a statement in response to a question. I didn't say you said anything you didn't. Now if you feel I answered a question not posed that is an entirely different thing than "putting words into" your " mouth".
If you knew nothing about the solar system then the bible could suggest about anything it or any text really. The question becomes is geocentrism a reasonable interpretation from these verses? If it is then God MUST also be a rock. Which you rejected for some strange reason.
I put it there. I do suppose I am a part of this conversation and I can add to it. I didn't say you said anything like that.
I accept the scientific view of on the nature of the orbits of the planets. On this I have been convinced.
Both use earth as a reference point. As do planetariums.

Sven

See, that's another thing we can agree on. I really have trouble to understand how you can fail to see what's blindingly obvious to me.

I see. Asking for an argument is "ignoring something"?

That's generous of you.

Thanks for this rewrite. But I hope you notice that theistic evolutionists argue exactly the same: Genesis 1+2 may suggest creationism, but they don't teach it.

Again: consistency. Theistic evolutionists have. Geocentrists have it. You have neither.

Interesting question. Since the thought of a book being from a god is completely alien to me (I did not believe in something like this even when I was still a Christian), I have to think about it.

Let's see. Reading the bible, one notices texts which look metaphorical, and texts which look literal. Thus the best stance would IMHO be taking everything metaphorical and then looking for more information outside the book to see which parts may be literal after all. This is perhaps overly cautious, but takes the risk away that one fools oneself. I think this procedure roughly resembles how theistic evolutionists treat the bible - and it's a consistent way.

Umm, that's what you do. You apply your belief to the passage, decide that it's all about showing the power of god, thus decide that (for instance) "the LORD reigns" is literal, and whatever does not fit your beliefs is metaphorical. You do exactly this: Pick and choose.

No. This does not mean that the text "teaches" this (whatever this means exactly). But interpreting a passage as a representation of the beliefs of the writer certainly is not far-fetched.

So it's not a metaphor, but a "reference point". Would you please explain what's the purpose of putting such a "reference point" in the psalm? Do you also interject "the Earth does not move" into your prayers from time to time?

That's not my burden of proof. There's no reason at all to believe that a creation story in a religious book is to be taken literal. You don't do this for any other religious book. And biblical scholarship virtually agrees on that it's not to be taken literal.

So it's your job to prove them wrong.

Of course it may not be warranted! I've conceded from the start that one can take the passage metaphorically!
But my argument still is (and has been in the last post) that some verse being metaphorical in a chapter do not mean that everything is metaphorical (especially the things which do not fit your beliefs). Again: Add to this that virtually everyone at this time was a geocentrist, assuming that the writer indeed meant this literally is reasonable.

There you have it. I (again) have said that it may be metaphorical and then laid down (again) my argument that it's reasonable to assume it was literal. No it's your turn to admit that it indeed may be literal and/or to refute my argument.

Again: I just was not sure what you argue. You certainly have noticed that I sometimes misunderstand people. So I ask again for clarification. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course. I start with everything being metaphorical, then look at what we know what the people at the time believed, then conclude which parts are likely metaphorical and which parts are likely literal. I see no inconsistency at all in this.


OK. But it's indeed the case that you answered a question I did not ask. This suggests (there's this word again) that you read it differently. Or that you read it correctly but chose to answer a question which was more convenient for you. Both this possibilities don't make you look that good, so I'm not sure why you complain here.

Bullocks. There are absolutely no verses in the bible which suggest a heliocentric world view. But there are verses which could be interpreted as supporting geocentrism. Exactly what people did for hundreds and thousands of years. According to you, they were all dumb because they all missed that this interpretation is unwarranted.

People very knowledgable and educated about the bible and their faith thought so for hudreds and thousands of years. But you are of course entirely free to call them all dumb. *shrug*

I explained quite clearly why I rejected it. This is a metaphor which has a very clear meaning. And people did not believe that god is a rock, as we know quite well from other sources. But people did believe in a non-moving Earth. So you repeating this is just a strawman.

*sigh* Of course you can add to this. But if you at the same time subtract what I asked, this looks a bit suspicious.

That's a non answer. Answering "Why exactly you have the view of the Earth going round the sun?" with "On this I have been convinced." tells us exactly nothing.

How is the Earth resting on pillars "using it as a reference point"?

And there's another difference. If you asked anyone at weather.com or at a planetarium if they suggest geocentrism, they will explain this to you. There's no such explanation in the bible. There was even never a revelation to anyone which corrected this. As I said: Your god apparently preferred that people understood this wrongly for hundreds of years. Again: That's just strange.

buckshot23

I personally see no reason internally to take Genesis 1 metaphorically. Internally the verses in context suggest that the author was writing metaphorically, which you agreed upon with God being a rock or not.
This is baseless. I believe I am the one being consistent. You are going to have to refute my analysis instead of hand waving it away.

Overly cautious indeed. Using this technique one would have to throw out all miracles since there can be no "information outside the book" to confirm them.
"The Lord reigns" is basically the point of the passage. What do you think the passage is trying to say? Secondly there are other instances of direct teaching of this in the bible while this passage is basically the "most clear" teaching of geocentrism. Even this case is weak. I think this disqualifies a geocentrism interpretation of these verses.

I may. God has power to establish the earth in its orbit which in our reference point doesn't move. If I place a nickel on the window sill it will be there in the morning even though it actually moved thousands of miles while I slept. I moved right along with it so it seems the nickel is in exactly the same place it was where I left it. Using your standard one would have to qualify every spatial relation comment with the rotation and movement of the earth, let alone our galaxy.

Well that is your opinion.
What internal evidence do they use?

:huh: I don't think so. Present internal evidence that Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taken metaphorically.
Fine.
Even if the the author was a geocentrist that doesn't mean that is what the bible is teaching us here.
What argument? That people who God used to teach us about Him did not have infinite knowledge about the universe? Is that a real big surprise? Is it reasonable to expect finite brains to have infinite knowledge? The point about these passages is to illustrate Gods power and sovereignty. That is all God intended with these passages. If the psalmist in fact believed that the earth is the center of the universe then so what?

Sure but the passage in question is a work of litarature. Internally I think it reasonable that the author was using metaphorical language to represent larger truths. You admit there is metaphorical language in there. So let's both agree that this passage is not the best in trying to take a tangential line of thought from.
I just don't see why it is a relevant question.
If you know nothing of the universe then your mind is an open book and you wouldn't even be able to understand the words in the first place. So far from being "bullocks" I think it is spot on. Again maybe you were being "non literal" when you said this.
Who is calling anybody dumb?
Sure and I explained that the earth not moving is a state of reference. Which should have a clear meaning.
Again who cares?
:huh:

See above. Earth "not moving" is a reference point because everything is moving. Earth resting on "pillars" is a part of the earth not moving.
Regardless, they still use the earth as a reference point.
That is a problem with your expectations nothing more.

RBH

OK, folks, this is deep into BC&H territory. Off it goes.

RBH, E/C Moderator

Sven

I see that you were generous enough to reply even one more time! Thanks!
And I think we have indeed made some progess. Hopefully, you agree.

You don't, but most biblical scholars so. If I happen to disagree with the experts, this tells me that I need to learn more, not to stubbornly repeat my claims.

Your analysis? All you presented was the non sequitur "one verse metaphorical -> entire chapter metaphorical"!

Yup. So what? You do exactly the same with miracles recorded in each and every other religious book. If there's a god and he wants me to believe in miracles, it's not my fault that he only gives non-verifiable claims.

*sigh* Exactly this is what your belief dictates you.

I don't think the passage tries to say anything. I think the writer of this passage wanted to write about his believes. Which included with a high probability a belief in a non-moving Earth. But thinking is not an argument - neither on my nor on your side.

See above. Thinking is not an argument.

OK. This discussion seems to be pointless. I'll try and give the rest of the post one last shot.

There's nothing about "esatblishing the earth in its orbit" - neither here nor anywhere else in the bible.

More strawmen of my "standard".

No. It's our opinion - only that I include one creation story more than you in the list.

I don't know. I'm quite comfortable with accepting conclusions of experts with knowing the details in each and every case. As you do with many other things, too - I suppose.

Great! We are getting somewhere!
So you agree that it's a possibility that the writer was a geocentrists and wrote down his beliefs in this passage?
But you disagree that one should take this as teaching?

If this properly describes your position, we apparently have to move on how one differentiates teaching in the bible from other things.

The argument that most people were geocentrists at this time, but that no one believed in god being a rock.

More strawmen.

But you may note that this applies exactly to Genesis 1+2: It's unreasonable to expect that humans at this time had any idea how the world originated.

Yes, that's what you believe. I prefer the more simple explanation that the writer intended this.

So what? If the writer of Genesis in fact believed that his god created the world in six days, so what?

Read the title of the thread again: Consistency. :wave:

Of course we can agree on this! As soon as you agree that Genesis 1+2 is not the best to take claims about biology, geology, etc. from.

It's relevant to me because I fail to understand why your god preferred humans misunderstanding the bible.

You are again inventing scenarios I did not suggest. Why do you continue this way? Are you not able to understand me, do you wish to dodge my questions, are you pulling my leg, or what?

I never mentioned knowing nothing of the universe.

:huh: By disagreeing with experts, one calls them dumb indirectly (or, alternatively, one claims that they have an agenda - which I fail to see in this case).

[snip]

What was difficult to understand here?

So the writer introduced just more metaphors?

You dodged the point: The point is that your analogy fails because in your examples, it's very easy to clear up any misunderstandings. Letting these verses in the bible without providing an easy way to clear the meaning up can only mean that your god preferred humans to misunderstand it. If you disagree with this conclusion, saying that this is a problem with my expectations is empty. You have to give an argument why one should expect otherwise.

BTW, I found it quite illuminating that you snipped this paragraph:

There are absolutely no verses in the bible which suggest a heliocentric world view. But there are verses which could be interpreted as supporting geocentrism. Exactly what people did for hundreds and thousands of years.

You only made some irrelevant comments on me saying "bullocks" - but ignored the following explanation why it's bullocks. Just to remind you: This was my answer to your claim "If you knew nothing about the solar system then the bible could suggest about anything it or any text really."

Either support this by explaining who the bible could suggest a heliocentric view, or retract it. Good luck. :wave:

Huon

I did not find any reference to Galileo Galilei in this thread. Why ?

My opinion is that the YECs of the XXIst century are not the believers of, say, the XVIth century. They have been compelled to accept heliocentrism, and they still resist on Evolution, or modern astronomy.

When some people say that parts of the OT are poetry, and other parts are "true", I ask them to tell me what is poetry (or babylonian mythology) and what is true in Genesis.

Jack the Bodiless

It's also useful to bring up the Firmament dome in such discussions, and the stars as little lights attached to it.

As Buckshot has been tossing the word "context" around, let's establish the context of the Biblical worldview:

We know quite a bit about this context from other Hebrew writings, such as 1 Enoch (formerly in the Bible, still in some Bibles, and personally endorsed by Jude who's in every modern Christian Bible IIRC).

It's rather hard to argue that the solid sky-dome, and particularly the little detachable stars, are useful metaphors like "sunrise" and "sunset". The complex system of slots/gates in the dome (not shown here), through which the Sun and the Moon enter and leave at different times of the year, aren't useful metaphors either: indeed, these are so useless that for centuries even poets have not seen fit to mention them (as far as I know).

John Kesler

I guess that someone forgot to tell the author of Sirach, which is part of "the Bible" for the majority of Christians, that Joshua 10 isn't meant literally:

buckshot23

I had more to say and you behaved a little better in your next post.
I really don't. You asked me why I take that psalm passage metaphorically and I told you but you didn't like the answer.
Yes I think context is a good thing to consider in these discussions. The whole passage uses metaphorical language and you want to rip a literal side issue out of context to support your belief.
I do so for religious reasons.
Choose to ignore context if you like but any objective person would see what I am saying. What is that passage talking about? Cosmology or something else. Obviously the latter.

Thinking isn't an argument. Sorry couldn't resist. Anyways, the writer is talking about the greatness of God and not about cosmology. Quote mining like this is so frowned upon but yet you do it over and over with the bible. Talk about not being consistent.

Who said there was?

Just taking your "standard" to its logical conclusion.
The author may very well be a geocentrist but that is not the same thing as this text advocating geocentrism. I fail to see the significance in this. Does this text teach geocentrism or not? For the same reasons nobody thinks God is a rock we should also conclude that maybe "the earth does not move" is not meant 100% literally.

And yet there is clear language that God is a rock! Which is proof that the author was using metaphoric language. Why can't you grasp this? Is it just that you don't want to? Or is that I have three letters (YEC)in my profile that you just can't let yourself understand this point.

Which you are failing to display by quote mining the bible to confirm your beliefs.
To a certain degree of course. I fail to see evidence, especially from your posts, that Genesis should not be taken literally as history. I at least have given you reasons why the Psalm in question is probably using metaphorical language. Consensus is not an argument.
Who said he did?

Gotta get to class.