[geocentrism] The figurative thing...
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:00:51 -0600
> Gary, You are doing the same thing Nevill does, and which Nick
criticises.. Just say the Bible was speaking figaritively, and the earth
was stopped, to make the universe and sun stop still to our eyes, then God
who could do that would surely have no trouble controlling you and not let
you fly off into space... He would do the whole thing..
>
> We but sidetrack ourselves with such trivia.. I am all ears and listening
to all, but I still fear that it is impossible to prove using known science
either way.... about geocentrism
>
Philip, in one aspect of this I certainly agree with you and Nick. God
would do the whole thing. As the Bible doesn't indicate all the minute
details of His actions on anything, it is not really a surprise that we
would not have precise details this time. That is true. The fact that
details are absent in the account proves nothing. They are, as Nick said,
"not determinative". Yes he would have taken care of the details, for
anything that He did.
However, that is entirely beside the point I would like to make now. Are we
to yield to the path of less resistance, the "figurative" path, every time
literal interpretation gets hairy? If so, this is where I will seriously
have to take issue with you. By glibly saying that we should insist the
Bible "was speaking figuratively" in Joshua, then I feel you obliterate the
initial belief in our statement of faith that the Bible is inerrant. Your
calling the whole passage "figurative" is a rather weak apology if you
really believe it is wrong. Can "figuratively" but wrong come from an
inerrant Bible? After all, Joshua 10:12 is Joshua's request, but verse 13
is God's reply, right? (How hard would it have been for God to simply say
that He stopped the earth's rotation in Joshua 10:13?) To say that God
didn't bother to tell us the plain truth makes God, to use an oft-repeated
Bouw phrase, a clumsy grammarian.
I don't believe we geocentrists can stand at all if we go around saying that
the Bible is "figurative here" and "figurative there", for that is exactly
what the BA-er's do. We're on one good leg and one prosthetic one in our
contentions...better not go chopping at the good one, had we?
As for being able to prove this issue, perhaps we won't (though the solar
eclipse and g.sat issues still puzzle me), but I am convinced of one thing,
Biblical credence hangs in the balance.
Gary
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/05
Other related posts:
