buckshot23

Why, internally should Genesis be taken metaphorically?

Beetle

Does Joshua 10:12-13 support geocentrism?

It doesn't talk about the earth ceasing it's orbit, but specifically says the sun stopped in the sky.

buckshot23

So what? Is weather.com teaching geocentrism by using "sunrise" and "sunset"? Of course not. They are using terminology based upon the earth as a point of reference. Just as the bible does.

Sven

OK, I see.

There's this strawman for the third time.

Since I never claimed it does, there's nothing to admit.

Not at all. MY claim was that the bible says that the Earth does not move. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not the same as teaching geocentrism - something which you are either not able nor willing to grasp.

You know, "in the greater context" one easily sees that there are two creation stories in Genesis, not one.

Why should one?

This is not my logic at all. I specifically said that one can interpret the verses metaphorically and then asked why one should do so. You are again putting words in my mouth. I really wish you would stop doing this.

I see. One poetic sentence in a chapter makes the entire chapter poetry? Or what is your claim exactly? If this is your claim, I'd like some substantiation. If it isn't, please explain.

What doy you think the purpose of Genesis 1+2 is? To teach biology? No, it is to teach that God has alot of power.

See, buckshot, exactly this is what I'm meaning with consistency.

Let' see.

So what? Then it's simply another failed chance to correct the writing of us mere humans.

See above. I nowhere claimed that one is in any way obliged to take everything literally.

See above.

My original claim was just this: "The bible says in several places that the Earth does not move."
This is obviously 100% correct. Your argument is that these instances are metaphorical - this does not change the fact that the passages exist. Their interpretation is the next step after acknowledging their existence.

See above. I don't see how the context changes anything, so this are no out of context quotes.

You should first read on and then answer the entire paraphraph.

Fourth usage of this strawman. I never ever that it teaches this. I just quote what it says and then ask what this suggests.
And you dodged the question, buckshot. Suppose you knew nothing about the solar system and then read the verses. Given this, do you really claim that they don't suggest a geocentrintic world view?

The only reason you gave is that they are part of chapters which have partly poetic content. So?

And I see that you've not even tried to address the point about general relativity.

Your post was a perfect example of dodging. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Maybe that's why I did not claim this. :wave: (fifth usage of this strawman)

Nice collecting of more strawmen. Nothing here in anyway resembles verses talking about a non-moving Earth and pillars on which the Earth rests.

Sven

So the Earth stopped rotating at this event? Yout to clarify what you are saying.

buckshot23

I have to say that I am disappointed with this response.
If the bible could merely suggest something has no import and we should stop talking about it.

So you agree that the bible doesn't teach a geocentric view of the universe. Good.
Good we agree. It doesn't teach geocentrism.
Would you mind not moving the goalposts?
To see if it is justified in taking any of it literally. Since there is obvious metaphoric language in these verses it is not justified in taking anything literal from the whole passage.
I believe I have justified a metaphorical intepretation of those out of context quotes. The passages in which they lay are poetry or are prayers by humans.
It is common sense. You asked how one should determine taking something literally or not and I told you. I think that looking at the context of what is being said and by whom and for what purpose is a fair standard. You provided snippets, out of context I put them in context and justified a metaphorical interpretation.

To teach how and the fact that God created us.

It is you who is not being consistent.

:huh:
Trying to take the entire thing literally is a tool, Sven. Would you agree that this passage suggests that God is a rock? Or do you think that is more of a metaphorical passage? Do you actually believe that the readers of the bible in ancient times believed that God was a rock, literally? That is what this passage clearly states. Why aren't we having that conversation?
Fine.
Sure. Where have I denied this?
Big deal.
Captain obvious to the rescue. I have given a reason these should be taken, in full context, metaphorically.
You not seeing it doesn't change anything.

This is irrelevant. If one had preconcieved notions of geocentrism then sure they could be used as support but here is the thing, they don't teach any such thing. They are out of context quotes ripped from passages that have obvious metaphorical language.(unless you think God is a literal rock of course)

Not just poetic content but obvious metaphoric content.

Not sure why I need to.
:huh:
Does weather.com "suggest" a geocentric view of the universe with terms like "sunrise" and "sunset"? Please answer this question.

robto

Buckshot, I think you're completely right that the context has to be taken into account. But if this is your position:

Then how do you have any idea what is meant literally and what metaphorically? For instance, should this
be taken literally? Or this
?

Or Genesis 1-2?

Just wondering...

buckshot23

Thank you.
It was the point of the poem. God's power and uniqueness. Not to teach cosmology.
Remember this is a prayer by a human and records what was prayed. Again what is the point of the passage? Was it to teach cosmology or something else?

Imagine I said: The US air force has great power nations bow down before it's might. Stones tremble from fear at it's strength.

Now the point of that passage is to talk about the strength of the US air force and not teach that stones tremble or that a nation can bow down. Much the same with these two passages. There is truth in my passage while containing metaphorical language.
I don't think there is any internal evidence that suggests a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is warranted.

RBH

To continue the BC&H derail that's likely to be split and moved soon, Buckshot23 wroteNot even the poetic meter of such phraseology as "and the evening and the morning were the Xth day"? In the KJV at least, it reads as poetry, very differently, say, from Leviticus.

RBH

Sven

At least something we can agree on.

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you rewrite this?

If you had read my original post, this argument would not have been necessary.

Sorry, this was just a cheap shot. Feel free to ignore it. Too much off-topic.

1) A strange way to approach a text like the bible. To see if a religious text means things literally or not, one has to look at the culture where it orginated, investigate what people knew, what they believed.
2) I've yet to see an argument which goes from "some metaphorical verses" to "entire chapter metaphorical". You pick and choose which verses are literal according to modern knowledge and your own beliefs, not according to the text. Otherwise, one could as well say that "The LORD reigns [...]" is metaphorical.

See above. No argument here.

See above. No argument here.

Buckshot, context also involves background knowlegde about the culture. This is what you ignore.

BTW, have you explained the metaphorical meaning of "the Earth does not move" somewhere? I apparently missed it.

:rolling: This just after demonstrating your inconsistency? Which biblical scholarship did you use exactly to establish that Genesis 1+2 are not metaphorical?

The point being made: Your god could have choosen these two oppurtunities to teach humans about the Earth moving around the sun. Instead, he choose to let the error persists for hundreds of years. It's just strange.

Because it's ridiculous. You can not compare the two verses if you really use context - the context being the background knowledge that no one at this time believed in god being a rock, but nearly everyone was a geocentrist.

Your words were not entirely clear. So I thought it's better to clear this up. Thanks.

Obviously this wasn't obvious to you - because you claimed four times that my claim is that the bible teaches geocentricity.

[snip]

Buckshot, please finally stop putting words into my mouth!
I said this: "Suppose you knew nothing about the solar system and then read the verses. Given this, do you really claim that they don't suggest a geocentrintic world view?"
There's nothing about "preconcieved notions of geocentrism" in there.

And now please answer the question.

[snip]

Sorry, I use the terms interchangeable. Perhaps not the best thing.

Because they allow a geocentric world view. I just ask why exactly you have the view of the Earth going round the sun. Is it because (nearly) everyone else has this view? Or what?

It will certainly add weight to your argument if you explained the relevancy of sunsets and sunrises to pillars on which the Earth rests and to the plain words "the Earth does not move".

Apart from this: Yes, "[s]uppose you knew nothing about the solar system and then heard the news", then weather.com would indeed suggest a geocentric view of the universe. Obviously. I have no idea why you apparently think differently.