Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 241 of 301 (182013)
01-31-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 1:22 PM


Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally. The only reason many don't today is because they have comprimised with the so called evidence of evolution and it's dating methods.
Christians (heck, Europeans....) before the time of Copernicus and Galileo almost all took the numerous passages in the Bible that indicate that the Earth is "immovable" or "fixed," apparently at the center of the universe, literally as well.
For one example, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote, in regard to Galileo:
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
(from Internet History Sourcebooks )
And Luther:
Martin Luther severely criticized Copernicus on a number of occasions. He referred to him as "the new astronomer who wants to prove that the earth goes round, and not the Heavens, the Sun, and the moon... The fool will turn the whole science of Astronomy upside down. But as Holy Writ declares, it was the Sun and not the Earth which Joshua commanded to stand still."
( http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/coper.htm )
Precisely as in the case of astronomy in the 1600's and 1700's, the sciences of geology and biology have moved on in the last couple of centuries. Do you really think, Terry, that we can now put probes onto Saturn's biggest moon because NASA has "compromised with the so called evidence" of heliocentrism? We have, here in 2005, a tremedously larger body of evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth and 500 million years' worth of our vertebrate ancestors than astronomy had for a sun-centered solar system until the space age. The very first uncontrivertable evidence that the Earth really moved was the discovery of parallax in the 1830's! Knowledge grows with time, man. Even if it finds things that don't agree with sacred texts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 8:32 AM Coragyps has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 301 (182015)
01-31-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Coragyps
01-31-2005 7:36 AM


reply to Coragyps
The very first uncontrivertable evidence that the Earth really moved was the discovery of parallax in the 1830's! Knowledge grows with time, man. Even if it finds things that don't agree with sacred texts.
There is no doubt that knowledge has increased greatly in the last 200 years. However, I believe that the Bible uses the sun rise/sun set language as we commonly do today. I listened to the news last night and they gave the excact time that the sun would rise this morning...not that the earth would rotate to allow the sun to be visible. And who knows for sure if the earth is not at or near the center of the universe. Science has been proven wrong before and frequently updates its "facts".
We have, here in 2005, a tremedously larger body of evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth
There is also a large body of evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Check out the Apologetic Press web site or AIG web site for YEC information. Most of the so called evidence for an old earth depends on the world view of the person looking at the data.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 7:36 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 9:23 AM Terry48420 has replied
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2005 11:32 AM Terry48420 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 243 of 301 (182023)
01-31-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 8:32 AM


Re: reply to Coragyps
However, I believe that the Bible uses the sun rise/sun set language as we commonly do today.
Of course it does. But it also uses language like the following:
"1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
Psalm 93:1: Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
Psalm 96:10: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
Psalm 104:5: Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
Isaiah 45:18: ...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...
These are what Bellarmine and Luther were talking about: plain teaching of the Prophets.
There is also a large body of evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
I would like to invite you to pick a couple of pieces of this evidence that you think are the most convincing and start a thread in the Dates and Dating forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 8:32 AM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 11:40 AM Coragyps has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 244 of 301 (182033)
01-31-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Terry48420
01-29-2005 9:12 AM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
Well, and how can you tell that John is truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Terry48420, posted 01-29-2005 9:12 AM Terry48420 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 245 of 301 (182049)
01-31-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 7:03 AM


By your/our definition of myth I agree that Gen 1 is a myth, but I do contend that it is literally true and not simply metaphorically true.
Reasonably, we would only expect it to be literally true if it had been written for the purpose of being literally true; my contention is that its quite obvious that the authors of Genesis did not have that intention. Rather they were writing for the purpose of being culturally true; providing their audience with true information, not about the history of the world, but about the Hebrew culture.
In the same way that Romeo and Juliet contains true information about love, and about culture and family, but is not itself a true story. Shakespeare's aim was to communicate truth, certainly; he chose to do it through a story that was not literally true.
I'm supprised that you claim it to be metaphorically true other than the fact that the universe had a beginning.
It's metaphorically true because Genesis is not a story about the creation of the world. It's a story about the creative nature of God, and his relationship to the Hebrew people. For what it intends to get across, its a true story. It isn't, and was not meant to be, a history textbook. You simply misunderstand its message.
Things naturally reproduce after their kind.
I'm sorry, their what?
If it is only metaphor of some kind of beginning, then it could have stoped at Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.".
Well hell, Shakespeare tells you the entire plot of Romeo and Juliet in the first five minutes. But you're not supposed to leave before you even see the actors, now are you? What would be the point of that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 7:03 AM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 12:03 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 301 (182051)
01-31-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 8:32 AM


Re: reply to Coragyps
Most of the so called evidence for an old earth depends on the world view of the person looking at the data.
Clearly that's not the case; the people who first disproved the Genesis timescale of the Earth were people who originally believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. Creationists, basically.
There's no evidence for a 10,000 year-old Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 8:32 AM Terry48420 has not replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 301 (182052)
01-31-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Coragyps
01-31-2005 9:23 AM


Re: reply to Coragyps
These are what Bellarmine and Luther were talking about: plain teaching of the Prophets.
Read the quotes you gave in the King James Version KJV and you will see that it is not saying that the earth is fixed in space, but only established by God.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord and there is none else. KJV
established is not the same as fixed immovable in space! From some translations, I can see how Luther could have been confused though. I use the same arguement for the Psalms you gave. It is talking about the nations being stable 1 Chr 16:30,31. Hebrew poetry rhymes thoughts not sounds. What is meant by "not moved" is explained in the next verse.
Bottom line, I do not see the Bible teaching that the earth is fixed at a point in space. Luther and others in times past were mistaken about what was being said.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 9:23 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 12:03 PM Terry48420 has replied
 Message 251 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 12:13 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 248 of 301 (182055)
01-31-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 11:40 AM


Re: reply to Coragyps
Luther and others in times past were mistaken about what was being said.
That's part of my point. What is it that makes it impossible that you are mistaken about what Genesis says, and that the Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Anglicans are closer to what it means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 11:40 AM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 12:24 PM Coragyps has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (182056)
01-31-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by crashfrog
01-31-2005 11:29 AM


Reply to crashfrog
It isn't, and was not meant to be, a history textbook
I think we will have to agree to disagree because I do see Genesis as a history of God's dealing with man from the creation of the world through the death of Joseph in Egypt. I don't see why God would give us a creation order that is totally invalid by science today unless science is mistaken.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2005 11:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2005 12:12 PM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 252 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2005 12:17 PM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 259 by Mike_King, posted 01-31-2005 6:13 PM Terry48420 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 250 of 301 (182057)
01-31-2005 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 12:03 PM


I don't see why God would give us a creation order that is totally invalid by science today unless science is mistaken.
God works in mysterious ways, doesn't He?
The third possibility, of course, is that you're mistaken about the origin of the Bible. But even if you aren't, you're second-guessing God.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-31-2005 12:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 12:03 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 251 of 301 (182058)
01-31-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 11:40 AM


Re: reply to Coragyps
Read the quotes you gave in the King James Version KJV and you will see that it is not saying that the earth is fixed in space...
The King James was published quite a while after Luther was dead, and published by relatively enlightened folks who may well have been aware that the Earth orbited the Sun. That could account for their choice of language. A century earlier, before science started stirring so much, a translation might have been a little closer to whatever Luther and Bellarmine used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 11:40 AM Terry48420 has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 252 of 301 (182060)
01-31-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Reply to crashfrog
"I don't see why God would give us a creation order that is totally invalid by science today unless science is mistaken." Terry48420
This statement is the lexicon of Christian creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 12:03 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 301 (182062)
01-31-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Coragyps
01-31-2005 12:03 PM


Re: reply to Coragyps
What is it that makes it impossible that you are mistaken about what Genesis says, and that the Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and Anglicans are closer to what it means?
I'm not sure about all of their beliefs, but most take one of several stances on Gen 1:
Literal
Day age
Gap theory
Modified Gap theory
It is only a culturally true myth
Except for literal, the other stances try to allow for 4.5 Billion years. After carful study of the text, I believe that the literal view is the only view that is supported. Others may disagree and they have their right to be wrong.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 12:03 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 12:49 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 254 of 301 (182067)
01-31-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 12:24 PM


Re: reply to Coragyps
the other stances try to allow for 4.5 Billion years.
Likely for the same reason that they allow for a heliocentric solar system - that's what fits with what we see around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 12:24 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 255 of 301 (182079)
01-31-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 7:58 PM


Re: Reply to Brian
The Apostle Peter said there would be false teachers in II Pet 2:1,2.
So, this means that Peter may have been a false teacher.
Maybe before you call one of Christianity's greatest ever apologists a false teacher, you should study his work a little.
I do not claim that ALL believe as I do,
What you claimed was that almost all Christians before Darwin took Genesis literally. You havent provided a single reference to support this assertion. Try providing some names.
but only most true Christians.
And we all know that the only true Christian is one that believes the same as you do!
And of course there is deeper or hidden meaning in most of the Bible, but that does not take away the plain literal meaining of the text.
Of course it does.
Especially the creation and flood accounts.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 7:58 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 4:07 PM Brian has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024