SPC773

I made no such argument or statement.

I merely said that it struck me as being figurative, and explained what I thought it’s significance was if one interpreted it that way. I then asked why, given figurative language elsewhere should we not read it figuratively.

The other references to ‘establishment’ or being ‘firmly fixed’ in the psalm are also used in figurative senses; i.e. the statues “stand firm”. They do not physically stand firm (how could they?). That the LORD’s throne is ‘established’, I would have thought, is not a reference to God physically affixing a literal throne to anything, it’s a reference to something like the LORD’s sovereignty.

Because it’s Hebrew poetry I think that arguing this passage is teaching the earth has literal foundations, establishing it or affixing it to something else prohibiting the earth from physically moving is reading too much into it.

Old testament Scholar M.E Tate in Psalms 51-100 for example says: “The psalm is a song which praises Yahweh’s kingship and his mighty deeds of (1) giving stability to the world (v 1) and of (2) giving sureness to those who depend upon his “testimonies” (v 5)” He thinks the significance of the establishment is “his work of creation will not fail”

But I can understand that if you are committed to a view that the writer believed in a flat earth with literal pillars or foundations you might think that the force of the imagery is draw from the literal state of affairs of the physical world. Certainly the physical ‘establishedness’ has to be manifest in physical reality in some way for the phase to have any meaning.

And BTW you didn’t answer my question as to reasons why we should not read it figuratively.

Regards

SPC

GenesisNemesis

Nevermind.

Gamera

The issue this raises is, how do we know that a particular passage is intended metaphorically.

Let me suggest that we use the same hermeneutical faculties to determine this that I would use in intepreting any text or any conversation.

We discern a figurative meaning from a statement based on context, obvious contradition of facts known to the parties, type of language used (poetic, scientific, bureaucratic, etc.), and purpose of the text.

I would argue that the same reasons that lead most everybody to realize that the Genesis 2 comment about "one flesh" is metaphorical, apply to the Genesis 1 creation narrative.

Sven

:huh: Would you please answer my question?

I entirely agree that there passages which are metaphorical. But you made a specific claim, phrased as a dichotomy - either support it, or retract it.

Sven

No. The issue is what "the world does not move" tells us about the human condition.

Sven

Nope. I said we should interpret the bible given background knowledge.

But you have repeatedly been shown to prefer strawman. So I suppose I should have expected something like this.

Sven

Well, since this has never been my argument - as you would know if you've read the other thread, I don't see the problem here.

Well, we know that almost everyone at this time believed this. I see no reason to think otherwise in this case.

I saw no reason to answer this because you said you've seen the other thread - where I explained this repeatedly.

SPC773

My apologies, I couldn't bring myself to trawl through the whole thing for your views. I skimmed through about the first page and a half and it looked like it was going in circles with accusations of ‘straw-men’ and ‘non sequiturs’ flying in all directions.

I don’t think either of us care enough about it to pursue it.

Cheers

Johnny Skeptic

If the writing of the Bible was inspired by a supernatural being, the only claim in the Bible that ultimately makes any difference is whether or not the supernatural being revealed his true intentions. I submit that we do not have sufficient evidence that he has revealed his true intentions.

If a God created the universe, if he is good, he might have chosen to reveal his true intentions to human beings if that is what he wished to do. If he is evil, he might have chosen to conceal his true intentions if that is what he wished to do. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, whether he is good or evil, he would by definition be able to effectively reveal or conceal his true intentions according to his wishes.

If God is good, he might not be the God of the Bible. Under such a scenario, he might not have revealed his true intentions at this time, or in the past. Hundreds of millions of people have died without knowing what the God of the Bible's true intentions are. As many Christians have said, since everyone has sinned, God is not obligated to save anyone. If that is true, God is also not obligated to reveal his true intentions to anyone in this life. If a supernatural being revealed his supposed intentions to the Bible writers, his supposed intentions are all that we have. In other words, all that we have are speculations and guesses, and yet Christians ask people to love God with all of their heart, soul, and mind, which is clearly impossible for logical and rational people to do based upon that kind of evidence.

hallq

There's one rather obnoxious error in the Talk Origins piece. It claims most inerrantists think the KJV is authoritative, but this is rather doubtful. The KJV is rejected by such big-shot defenders of inerrancy as Norman Geisler.