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. Holy cow Gary... You got me wrong... I was speaking figuratively. Did I leave out the "what if?" did I not say , "Just say the Bible was speaking figaritively" you know like pretend! Get it? Yet we all got to admit Revelations, sure got a lot of problems for literal interpretation.... Back to subject. The Bible said the sun stopped. I do not think this passage is for or against GC. Think real hard. . In the helio centric system, (a scientific possibility, and a good logical assumption) when God talked to His people, back then, what would they have thought if He had written in Joshua, "The Earth stopped" ...? Even had that been true, and God never lies, it would have been meaningless to the people, so He would have spoken according to convention, The science is not important here. That He suspended nature is! My message... Do not let your salvation rest upon HC GC or any other C. The supernatural life is outside of science. Its internal between you and God. Even Mikes self alledged atheism, is judged by Him on High, not us. Neville would be the first to acknowledge that. Philip. ---- Original Message ----- From: Gary Shelton To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:00 PM Subject: [geocentrism] The figurative thing... > 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