A Literal Theistic Evolutionary Reading of Genesis 1

[Ragdoll]

We know of course (I know you'll agree) that God doesn't have to be at a location like 20 or 40 miles up in order to be able to see all the Earth! He's not limited in that way, of course. He can see everything at once, and it's such a beautiful metaphor that He 'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth'

Even though we know perfectly well He's not limited by distance, geographic, visibility, houses, caves, under the earth, you name it: nothing can prevent his seeing.

It's such a wonderful passage:

9 You who bring good news to Zion,
go up on a high mountain.
You who bring good news to Jerusalem,
lift up your voice with a shout,
lift it up, do not be afraid;
say to the towns of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
10 See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power,
and he rules with a mighty arm.
See, his reward is with him,
and his recompense accompanies him.
11 He tends his flock like a shepherd:
He gathers the lambs in his arms
and carries them close to his heart;
he gently leads those that have young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord,
or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
or showed him the path of understanding?

15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
they are regarded as dust on the scales;
he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.
16 Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,
nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.
17 Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.

18 With whom, then, will you compare God?
To what image will you liken him?
19 As for an idol, a metalworker casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
and fashions silver chains for it.
20 A person too poor to present such an offering
selects wood that will not rot;
they look for a skilled worker
to set up an idol that will not topple.

21 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

27 Why do you complain, Jacob?
Why do you say, Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord;
my cause is disregarded by my God”?
28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.
30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;
31 but those who hope in the Lord
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint."

After you read it, perhaps it would be interesting to then count the number of metaphorical wordings.

Here is 4th century Bishop Ambrose giving a reading from Isaiah 40:22.

"And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).

Now if we go by original claims made by flat earthers as well as decades of atheists allegations, Bishop Ambrose should not being reading globe from the Bible. The original position is that the Church did not begin to interpret globe into the Bible until Columbus' famous voyage in 1492. Though I can assure you that long before that voyage the Church read globe earth from the Bible from the 1st century up to Columbus and beyond. The Bible of the western Church during Columbus' 1492 voyage was the Latin Vulgate. I have the Latin Vulgate in both Latin and English and there are multiple globe earth verses in there. So the idea of the Church back then reading flat earth, as originally assumed, is not true.

In the 1st century we have an early Christian witness as to the earth's shape according to the early Church father, Clement of Rome. We had another member post on that on a different topic. I also know about the globe earth references from Clement of Rome. But it doesn't end with 1st century Clement of Rome, you will see a steady globe earth reading throughout the entire Church history with no gaps in the ecclesiastical linage.

Isaiah 40:22 teaches the spherical shape of the earth from a geometrical point of view. Long before the word sphere, the word chuwg is the first word in history to describe a spherical planet that moves in a circle (i.e., circuit/rotation). Then there is the word tebel which means the habitable globe.

The Bible isn't called Holy because its the word of the Hebrews or their neighbors. It's called the Holy Bible because its the word of God. There are things in the Bible that cannot be known apart from Divine revelation and inspiration.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Yeah, just ignore all the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicons and pretend they're not there. Just ignore the Greek and Latin that also means globe. Tebel means the habitable globe.

The Bible is not the word of the Hebrews or other nations. The Bible is not the word of culture. It's the word of God. When you reduce the word of God to the word of men then you are committing yourself to error.


English Definition of World

English Definition of world from the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

"1. The universe; the whole system of created globes or vast bodies of matter.
2. The earth; the terraqueous globe; sometimes called the lower world."
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - World

Though even in our modern English "world" carries the globular meaning
World Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Even in English words are contextually applied depending how they are expressed. Any time the word "world" is used in connection with the whole earth along with it's inhabitants, it means globe.

The only English translations that truly get it right are the Tyndale Bibles. The Julia Smith Bible also gets it right. The err began with the oversimplification of tebel when the amateur Geneva scholars translated the Geneva Bible in 1560. About 93% of the KJV reads like the Geneva Bible, and the err made it into all other translations. It's an err because its an oversimplification that was fine at the time of translations but became more obsolete as English changed. But the word tebel means the habitable globe. It has always meant that. It means that in Hebrew, its means that in Greek and Latin, and it means that in English.

"For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:18, KJV)


Word: תבל

"world, earth, globe"
תבל - Translation into English - examples Hebrew | Reverso Context

i don’t have to ignore them. I’ve seen biblical scholars discuss them in detail. All I’m having to ignore is your opinion because I have no reason to accept it. Especially not based off of what you wrote. Just because after a wide acceptance of the globe in the 1500s resulting in some translators working their view into their text does not mean that’s how the text was understood for thousands of years prior to that.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Also, I thought it went without saying but I’m realizing it’s not.

Ancient Greeks had a different cosmology than ancient Jews. We are not debating if the Greeks understood the world was spherical. We all know they knew that. What’s being discussed is did ancient Jewish , or Mesopotamians know that since they are the ones who wrote it. So a Greek man from 200bc had a very different understanding than a Hebrew man around 600bc. We know the Mesopotamians were heavily influenced by the Egyptians and we know both groups believed in a flat earth. I’m not certain we even have evidence of what 6th century Greeks believed concerning the earth.
We also know that in the epistles Paul had a different understanding of the world than we do. Numerous times Paul mentions the gospel having been heard already across the whole world in the first century. Yet he knew nothing of places like what would become America.

 

[Halbhh]

Also, I thought it went without saying but I’m realizing it’s not.

Ancient Greeks had a different cosmology than ancient Jews. We are not debating if the Greeks understood the world was spherical. We all know they knew that. What’s being discussed is did ancient Jewish , or Mesopotamians know that since they are the ones who wrote it. So a Greek man from 200bc had a very different understanding than a Hebrew man around 600bc. We know the Mesopotamians were heavily influenced by the Egyptians and we know both groups believed in a flat earth. I’m not certain we even have evidence of what 6th century Greeks believed concerning the earth.
We also know that in the epistles Paul had a different understanding of the world than we do. Numerous times Paul mentions the gospel having been heard already across the whole world in the first century. Yet he knew nothing of places like what would become America.

Well, thinking about what people thought in previous centuries, we know it's very routine that people in previous times didn't understand everything.

For example...here's a strong example of a general kind:

Matthew 13:17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

And, Christ explained to His disciples key things that were in the Old Testament scriptures all along -- over the centuries -- and the Jews had these scriptures....had them, and understood many things, but not everything-- they and their ancestors had already had the The Pentateuch and the prophets, had Isaiah, and over time all the rest -- and had many rabbis that wrote and explained what they could --...but still could not understand everything.

And Christ explained things to his disciples we know:
Luke 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

So, we can't simply say: here's what the many Jews thought in 700 BCE or 500BCE, and therefore that must be what the text meant.

In reality, they didn't understand all the text.

It's the same today for very many people also. But if a person will read fully through everything with a listening attitude like a student (so that the person doesn't think they already know all they need, but are seeking to hear and gain understanding from the words), then the person will gain things they did not fully understand or appreciate before.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Well, thinking about what people thought in previous centuries, we know it's very routine that people in previous times didn't understand everything.

For example...here's a strong example of a general kind:

Matthew 13:17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

And, Christ explained to His disciples key things that were in the Old Testament scriptures all along -- over the centuries -- and the Jews had these scriptures....had them, and understood many things, but not everything-- they and their ancestors had already had the The Pentateuch and the prophets, had Isaiah, and over time all the rest -- and had many rabbis that wrote and explained what they could --...but still could not understand everything.

And Christ explained things to his disciples we know:
Luke 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

So, we can't simply say: here's what the many Jews thought in 700 BCE or 500BCE, and therefore that must be what the text meant.

In reality, they didn't understand all the text.

It's the same today for very many people also. But if a person will read fully through everything with a listening attitude like a student (so that the person doesn't think they already know all they need, but are seeking to hear and gain understanding from the words), then the person will gain things they did not fully understand or appreciate before.

what we can do though is see what did ancient Jewish people believe. What did ancient Mesopotamians believe. See what they believe and when.

 

[Ragdoll]

i don’t have to ignore them. I’ve seen biblical scholars discuss them in detail. All I’m having to ignore is your opinion because I have no reason to accept it. Especially not based off of what you wrote. Just because after a wide acceptance of the globe in the 1500s resulting in some translators working their view into their text does not mean that’s how the text was understood for thousands of years prior to that.

Wow. You just completely ignored my post. How rude of you. I read your post but you don't read mine.

They did not start translating globe into the Bible until the 1500s?? I've heard this myth many times before but its not true. Before William Tyndale translated the entire Bible into English, the Bible of the western Church was the Latin Vulgate. If what you say is true, then no globe earth verses exist in the Latin Vulgate. So lets see what the Latin says.

St.Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate:

Job 37:12,

Latin Vulgate: "quae lustrant per circuitum quocumque eas voluntas gubernantis duxerit ad omne quod praeceperit illis super faciem orbis terrarum"

Latin Definition of Orbis terrarum
What does "orbis terrarum" mean in Latin? (wordhippo.com)

How To Say "World Globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Psalm 18:15,

Latin Vulgate (Psalm 17:16): "et apparuerunt fontes aquarum et revelata sunt fundamenta orbis terrarum ab increpatione tua Domine ab inspiratione spiritus irae tuae"

How to say "world globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)


Psalm 24:1,

Latin Vulgate: "psalmus David prima sabbati Domini est terra et plenitudo eius orbis terrarum et universi; qui habitant in eo"

How to say "world globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Psalm 98:7

Latin Vulgate (Psalm 97:7): "moveatur mare, et plenitudo ejus; orbis terrarum, et qui habitant in eo."

How to say world globe in Latin

"orbis terrarum"!
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Proverbs 8:27,

Latin Vulgate: "Quando praeparabat caelos, aderam; quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;"

Round
What does gyro mean in Latin? (wordhippo.com)

Wisdom of Solomon 7:17 - Apocrypha

Latin Vulgate: "Ipse enim dedit mihi horum quae sunt scientiam veram, ut sciam dispositionem orbis terrarum, et virtutes elementorum"


How to say "world globe" in Latin:

"orbis terrarum"
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)


Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 - Apocrypha

"Latin Vulgate: "Non enim impossibilis erat omnipotens manus tua, quae creavit orbem terrarum ex materia invisa, immittere illis multitudinem ursorum, aut audaces leones,"

And this is just a few verses. It doesn't cover all globe earth verses in the Bible. But this is a good basic lesson in Latin.

Not only did St.Jerome translate globe earth into the Bible, but St.Ambrose, another 4th century scholar, quotes from Isaiah 40:22,

"And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).

Now you said the Church didn't start reading globe earth into the Bible until the 1500s. The story flat earthers give me is that Columbus proved the earth was spherical so then the Church began to translate globe earth into the Bible. That claim is not true and I have proven that here for you.

We can go back further even. How about Clement of Rome? Why not go back to the 1st century and see how this 1st century Bishop understood the Biblical shape of the earth?

Also, I thought it went without saying but I’m realizing it’s not.

Ancient Greeks had a different cosmology than ancient Jews. We are not debating if the Greeks understood the world was spherical. We all know they knew that. What’s being discussed is did ancient Jewish , or Mesopotamians know that since they are the ones who wrote it. So a Greek man from 200bc had a very different understanding than a Hebrew man around 600bc. We know the Mesopotamians were heavily influenced by the Egyptians and we know both groups believed in a flat earth. I’m not certain we even have evidence of what 6th century Greeks believed concerning the earth.
We also know that in the epistles Paul had a different understanding of the world than we do. Numerous times Paul mentions the gospel having been heard already across the whole world in the first century. Yet he knew nothing of places like what would become America.

I bet the Apostle Paul did know about America. Why not consult Clement of Rome, who was a disciple of the Apostles (Philippians 4:3) and see what he says?

The Old Testament is older than the first Greek thought on the earth's sphericity. There are multiple globe earth verses in the Old Testament. All predate 500 B.C.

Did Moses and the Hebrews leave Egypt just so they could worship Egyptian gods? No, that is not how Exodus reads. Moses and the Hebrews left Egypt so they could worship the true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If Moses and the Hebrews wanted to worship false gods they could have just stayed in Egypt. The Hebrews were not of the same religion as their Mesopotamian neighbors. Even the Romans recognized the Jewish religion as unique among the ancient world. So when you try to turn the God of Abraham, the God of Moses and Hebrews, into the God of Babylon, you commit yourself to a deep heresy. Not all religions are the same religion. Not all religions believed the same things.

what we can do though is see what did ancient Jewish people believe. What did ancient Mesopotamians believe. See what they believe and when.

This is fallacious thinking. Why not go ask Muslims or Buddhists what Christians believe and forget consulting Christian sources. That is how you are analyzing this. I do not need to consult Babylon to see that they believed. I know they believed in flat earth. It's what the Bible says that counts.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Wow. You just completely ignored my post. How rude of you. I read your post but you don't read mine.

They did not start translating globe into the Bible until the 1500s?? I've heard this myth many times before but its not true. Before William Tyndale translated the entire Bible into English, the Bible of the western Church was the Latin Vulgate. If what you say is true, then no globe earth verses exist in the Latin Vulgate. So lets see what the Latin says.

St.Jerome's 4th century Latin Vulgate:

Job 37:12,

Latin Vulgate: "quae lustrant per circuitum quocumque eas voluntas gubernantis duxerit ad omne quod praeceperit illis super faciem orbis terrarum"

Latin Definition of Orbis terrarum
What does "orbis terrarum" mean in Latin? (wordhippo.com)

How To Say "World Globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Psalm 18:15,

Latin Vulgate (Psalm 17:16): "et apparuerunt fontes aquarum et revelata sunt fundamenta orbis terrarum ab increpatione tua Domine ab inspiratione spiritus irae tuae"

How to say "world globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)


Psalm 24:1,

Latin Vulgate: "psalmus David prima sabbati Domini est terra et plenitudo eius orbis terrarum et universi; qui habitant in eo"

How to say "world globe" in Latin
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Psalm 98:7

Latin Vulgate (Psalm 97:7): "moveatur mare, et plenitudo ejus; orbis terrarum, et qui habitant in eo."

How to say world globe in Latin

"orbis terrarum"!
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)

Proverbs 8:27,

Latin Vulgate: "Quando praeparabat caelos, aderam; quando certa lege et gyro vallabat abyssos;"

Round
What does gyro mean in Latin? (wordhippo.com)

Wisdom of Solomon 7:17 - Apocrypha

Latin Vulgate: "Ipse enim dedit mihi horum quae sunt scientiam veram, ut sciam dispositionem orbis terrarum, et virtutes elementorum"


How to say "world globe" in Latin:

"orbis terrarum"
How to say "world globe" in Latin (wordhippo.com)


Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 - Apocrypha

"Latin Vulgate: "Non enim impossibilis erat omnipotens manus tua, quae creavit orbem terrarum ex materia invisa, immittere illis multitudinem ursorum, aut audaces leones,"

And this is just a few verses. It doesn't cover all globe earth verses in the Bible. But this is a good basic lesson in Latin.

Not only did St.Jerome translate globe earth into the Bible, but St.Ambrose, another 4th century scholar, quotes from Isaiah 40:22,

"And further on: 'Who sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts, who stretcheth out the heavens as an arch?' Who, then, ventures to put his knowledge in the same plane with that of God?” (St.Ambrose, "Hexameron" The Fathers Of The Church series translated by John J. Savage, p.231).

Now you said the Church didn't start reading globe earth into the Bible until the 1500s. The story flat earthers give me is that Columbus proved the earth was spherical so then the Church began to translate globe earth into the Bible. That claim is not true and I have proven that here for you.

We can go back further even. How about Clement of Rome? Why not go back to the 1st century and see how this 1st century Bishop understood the Biblical shape of the earth?




I bet the Apostle Paul did know about America. Why not consult Clement of Rome, who was a disciple of the Apostles (Philippians 4:3) and see what he says?

The Old Testament is older than the first Greek thought on the earth's sphericity. There are multiple globe earth verses in the Old Testament. All predate 500 B.C.

Did Moses and the Hebrews leave Egypt just so they could worship Egyptian gods? No, that is not how Exodus reads. Moses and the Hebrews left Egypt so they could worship the true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If Moses and the Hebrews wanted to worship false gods they could have just stayed in Egypt. The Hebrews were not of the same religion as their Mesopotamian neighbors. Even the Romans recognized the Jewish religion as unique among the ancient world. So when you try to turn the God of Abraham, the God of Moses and Hebrews, into the God of Babylon, you commit yourself to a deep heresy. Not all religions are the same religion. Not all religions believed the same things.



This is fallacious thinking. Why not go ask Muslims or Buddhists what Christians believe and forget consulting Christian sources. That is how you are analyzing this. I do not need to consult Babylon to see that they believed. I know they believed in flat earth. It's what the Bible says that counts.

the reason why your post gets skimmed is because most of it is irrelevant to what is being talked about it already answered. It’s already been answered and mentioned in my post that Greeks knew the word was spherical and it was accepted by them.

but the Tanakh was not written in Greek. The Tanakh was not written after that knowledge was known. The Tanakh was written by ancient Jewish people. Ancient Jewish people were not influenced by Greek though. They were influenced by other Mesopotamian tribes and by Egyptian worldviews. So where the ancient Jews were when the Tanakh was written they were all believing in a flat earth with a dome over it that protected them from water.

what evidence are you looking at to show the world was known to be spherical and widely accepted by Jews 500bc?

 

[Halbhh]

what we can do though is see what did ancient Jewish people believe. What did ancient Mesopotamians believe. See what they believe and when.

And, the scripture has wordings the people did not fully understand.... And so that had widespread viewpoints many or most all shared that were wrong.

So, you cannot say simply that if many during some (short or long) period thought the Earth was flat, then that is what scripture meant.

Instead what happens is so much more wonderful and amazing: God inspires scripture, and men don't fully understand everything in it -- and that's often for a long time, centuries!, until later more is revealed.

 

[Halbhh]

We still have the light in the center of the earth. Without the core our planet cannot sustain life. The core is light and that light provides life to the earth as well as rotation.

Well, that's not an idea I'd heard before, and the other day I didn't try to address it, but it's a curious sounding idea to my ears, unless you meant only merely the physics side. (not sure if you did) If only speaking in only physics terms about the forming Earth according to the mainstream theory: the natural heat of accretion of the forming Earth would make the center (the core) very hot and it would radiate even long after the upper layers cool enough to stop radiating, but of course the layers of Earth above that core would absorb all of that radiation.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

There is no reason to believe the Bible taught a globe. There is no reason to think the Bible snuck science into it that people would not know for hundreds of years.

 

[Ragdoll]

Well, that's not an idea I'd heard before, and the other day I didn't try to address it, but it's a curious sounding idea to my ears, unless you meant only merely the physics side. (not sure if you did) If only speaking in only physics terms about the forming Earth according to the mainstream theory: the natural heat of accretion of the forming Earth would make the center (the core) very hot and it would radiate even long after the upper layers cool enough to stop radiating, but of course the layers of Earth above that core would absorb all of that radiation.

Yes, it is a new interpretation but based on ancient exegesis. What I like about it is how it follows the context and harmonizes so well. So in verse 2, the earth is formless, without shape, and void. It's basically just a watery blob-like substance at this point. Then God's Spirit moves over the watery blob and continues His focus on creating it. So in verse 1, the earth was just a watery blob. In verse 2, God moves over the watery blob and is going to continue what He started. His focus is on the earth. In verse 3, God creates a finite light for the earth. This gives the earth life as well as shape. Verses 4-5 are traditionally understood as the earth's first full rotation as a planet - the day-night cycle.

So people look outside the earth for this source of light but cannot understand what that source is? Best interpretation out there in the YEC community is that God created electromagnetic energy and photons. This is plausible. However, it's hard to see how that fits the context. I think God would have created electromagnetic energy and photons in verse 1. To me that makes more sense.

Here is a good meme that begs the question

 

[Ragdoll]

the reason why your post gets skimmed is because most of it is irrelevant to what is being talked about it already answered. It’s already been answered and mentioned in my post that Greeks knew the word was spherical and it was accepted by them.

but the Tanakh was not written in Greek. The Tanakh was not written after that knowledge was known. The Tanakh was written by ancient Jewish people. Ancient Jewish people were not influenced by Greek though. They were influenced by other Mesopotamian tribes and by Egyptian worldviews. So where the ancient Jews were when the Tanakh was written they were all believing in a flat earth with a dome over it that protected them from water.

what evidence are you looking at to show the world was known to be spherical and widely accepted by Jews 500bc?

First of all, your view that says the Jews copied ideas from neighboring nations is a deep heresy. The Bible is not the word of the Jews. It's the word of God. Its not about Mesopotamian culture. In fact, anyone who has read the Old Testament knows that the Jews were not allowed to follow after pagan cultures. Who wrote the rules? God did. Who is God? The Creator of all you see in the natural order of things. So I'm not going to entertain this false notion that the Bible is just the word of the Jews since that is not what Christians believe at all. Christians never believed that in ancient times and they don't believe that in modern times. And if Moses and the Hebrews wanted to worship the false idols of the Egyptians, then why didn't they just stay in Egypt? There is no logical answer to that. This is because Exodus says they wanted to leave Egypt to worship their God, which was not the God of Egyptian idols or culture.

Most of the Old Testament was written before 500 B.C. - before the Greeks began thinking about the reality that our planet is spherical. So everything I already posted from Scripture about the spherical earth is already much older than 500 B.C.

I also noticed how you did not bother to recant your previous allegation about how the Church supposedly began to interpret globe earth into Scripture until the 1500s. I proved to you that the Latin Vulgate, a 4th century translation that was the Bible of the Church before the 1500s, had plenty of globe earth verses in there. Oh, I forgot. You didn't read any of it because you already assumed to know all things and there is nothing left for you to learn. That is why you never read things posted by other people.

 

[Halbhh]

What I like about it is how it follows the context and harmonizes so well.

Ah, that's what I like about my own view. It assumes nothing at all, and doesn't even assume verse 19 is inside of verse 16 even.... Rather, I simply see that:

• verse 16 is true, and
• verse 17 is true, and
• verse 18 is true, and
• these truths were revealed on the day said in verse 19 surely....

No extra assumptions added, not even the most plausible extra ideas/assumptions of the typical YEC theorizing, such as the added assumption that verse 19 is bonded in or contained by verse 16. I just read that verse 19 says when all of these things were evident.

When these things were revealed.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, as you can see, then I don't even need the surprising theory that the Earth shone from inside and it somehow created day and night. Because I'm just letting day 4 be like unto day 5 and day 3 -- with an evening and a morning. Just like the text reads simply. And just like today.

 

[Ragdoll]

Ah, that's what I like about my own view. It assumes nothing at all, and doesn't even assume verse 19 is inside of verse 16 even.... Rather, I simply see that:

• verse 16 is true, and
• verse 17 is true, and
• verse 18 is true, and
• these truths were revealed on the day said in verse 19 surely....

No extra assumptions added, not even the most plausible extra ideas/assumptions of the typical YEC theorizing, such as the added assumption that verse 19 is bonded in or contained by verse 16. I just read that verse 19 says when all of these things were evident.

When these things were revealed.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, as you can see, then I don't even need the surprising theory that the Earth shone from inside and it somehow created day and night. Because I'm just letting day 4 be like unto day 5 and day 3 -- with an evening and a morning. Just like the text reads simply. And just like today.

I prefer using a better English translation that better captures the Hebrew:

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons, and days, and years. 15 Let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 Then God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Genesis 1:14-19 MEV - And God said, “Let there be lights in - Bible Gateway

V.14. God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens."
Let there be indicates a new creation and not what was created in v.1.

v.16. God made the sun and moon and the stars also.
This indicates a new creation and not something already created in v.1

v.19. The evening and morning represent the completion of the day-night cycle. The 4 day was the earth's fourth full rotation as a planet. What God started in vs.4-5, He finished on the 4th Day. But God is creating on all 6 days. Only on the 7th Day did God cease from His work of creation. He did not cease creating on Day 4 as your interpretation of this Day suggests.

 

[Halbhh]

He did not cease creating on Day 4 as your interpretation of this Day suggests.

Whoa! What in the world...

Imagine if suddenly out of the blue with zero reason I just jumped to a conclusion without any basis and then wrote to you Ragdoll:

"He did not cease creating on Day 5 as your interpretation of this Day suggests."

--------

So, I not only believe in every word of the chapter, but I also believe in the entire bible, having read all of it more than 1 time.
---

What happened there?

Did you think I don't know this, or didn't read:

But God is creating on all 6 days.

^^ This is certainly true, and it's what the text says, and not only have read it in many translations, but I believe every last word of it... (if you are interested or like to know, I've read it in the ESV, NIV, KJV, NASB, YLT, and Young's Literal translation, and looked at the Hebrew)

What's going on there that you jumped to that wild idea that I thought the creation ended on day 4...!? You don't want to totally make wrong guesses about the people you are talking with after all. You'd be tilting at windmills too often (even though no doubt we all have, we don't want to do it even more...)

Look, that was seriously offensive. Sure, I'll be forgiving you, but you should not be doing that kind of thing.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Yes, it is a new interpretation but based on ancient exegesis. What I like about it is how it follows the context and harmonizes so well. So in verse 2, the earth is formless, without shape, and void. It's basically just a watery blob-like substance at this point. Then God's Spirit moves over the watery blob and continues His focus on creating it. So in verse 1, the earth was just a watery blob. In verse 2, God moves over the watery blob and is going to continue what He started. His focus is on the earth. In verse 3, God creates a finite light for the earth. This gives the earth life as well as shape. Verses 4-5 are traditionally understood as the earth's first full rotation as a planet - the day-night cycle.

So people look outside the earth for this source of light but cannot understand what that source is? Best interpretation out there in the YEC community is that God created electromagnetic energy and photons. This is plausible. However, it's hard to see how that fits the context. I think God would have created electromagnetic energy and photons in verse 1. To me that makes more sense.

Here is a good meme that begs the question
View attachment 315829

ancient Jewish people believed that the sun moved around the earth…. They did not know the earth was moving. They believed that there were lights in the firmament and angels moved them. We even see some evidence that ancient Jewish people believed that the stars were actually angels themselves even within the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:19
19 And be careful not to raise your eyes to heaven and look at the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly lights, and allow yourself to be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

so they believed that these angels moved the stars across the firmament to out of sight and brought them back. Along with them controlling the rain and ect…

 

[Ragdoll]

ancient Jewish people believed that the sun moved around the earth…. They did not know the earth was moving. They believed that there were lights in the firmament and angels moved them. We even see some evidence that ancient Jewish people believed that the stars were actually angels themselves even within the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:19
19 And be careful not to raise your eyes to heaven and look at the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly lights, and allow yourself to be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

so they believed that these angels moved the stars across the firmament to out of sight and brought them back. Along with them controlling the rain and ect…

That verse says nothing about geocentrism. Do you understand what geocentrism is?

Geocentrism was the belief held by various ancient nations that the earth was the center and the sun, moon, and planets moved around the earth. This earth never moved. In the Bible, the earth moves in a circle. The verse you cited says nothing about heliocentrism. It just says not to worship the sun, moon and stars, That's all it says.

Also, please show me in the Bibe where it says "Thus spoke the Jews." I'd really like to see that verse.

 

[Ragdoll]

Whoa! What in the world...

Imagine if suddenly out of the blue with zero reason I just jumped to a conclusion without any basis and then wrote to you Ragdoll:

"He did not cease creating on Day 5 as your interpretation of this Day suggests."

Actually, I said Day 4. Best to use the quote system to avoid misrepresenting what others say

And yeah, when you suggest that the only thing that happened on Day 4 was the appearance of lights in the sky that were all created on Day 1, then you are also suggesting that God ceased from His work on Day 4. Then I guess He started back up on Day 5 and then ceased again on Day 7. This would give us two Sabbath Days. But the passage clearly says that God made them on that day - Day 4.

--------

So, I not only believe in every word of the chapter, but I also believe in the entire bible, having read all of it more than 1 time.
---

I'm not questioning that at all. I believe you have read the Bible as you say. Though that doesn't mean that somewhere along the line you gave in to bad exegesis out of fear of evolution theory. Hey, we've all done the same thing at one point in our lives. There was a time not too long ago where I believed some sort of big bang happened in verse 3. That is a common mistake people make.

- What's going on there that you jumped to that wild idea that I thought the creation ended on day 4...!? You don't want to totally make wrong guesses about the people you are talking with after all. You'd be tilting at windmills too often (even though no doubt we all have, we don't want to do it even more...)

Look, that was seriously offensive. Sure, I'll be forgiving you, but you should not be doing that kind of thing.

Maybe you are offended because you never before seen it that way? So I'll go over my comment again. So you believe the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1, but were not seen until Day 4. This means that God didn't do anything on Day 4, but ceased from His work on Day 4 because He already created those things on Day 1. So essentially, Day 4 is a Sabbath rest before Day 7. If you say God did nothing on Day 4, but just waited for Day 1 to be visible, then God rested on Day 4 and just watched....but did no work. That's a Sabbath rest before the Sabbath Day.

 

[Halbhh]

And yeah, when you suggest that the only thing that happened on Day 4 was the appearance of lights in the sky that were all created on Day 1, then you are also suggesting that God ceased from His work on Day 4.

What? No. That doesn't follow at all. Or not to my way of thinking. Did I point out already to you in this discussion (I may not have) that I think since Moses of course was not there, this is given to Moses as a vision, with some narration also (often put in quotation marks in many translations), by the Lord? We learn in scripture that visions are the normal way God often communicates to many people -- 1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 for example. A great vision example is that given to Peter in Acts chapter 10. If you look at it you see the common characteristics of a vision: it is representative, in a useful way, of reality, it's true, and often some narration is given also, and only just enough words so that in time the meaning can be eventually understood. Not lots of extra words! (in other words a lot less verbose than my posts, and so much far far better writing)
So, when a vision is then written down, the writer writes what they saw, and also additionally what they heard, both.

 

[Halbhh]

So you believe the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1, but were not seen until Day 4. This means that God didn't do anything on Day 4,

Ah! Ok, this part: "This means that God didn't do anything on Day 4" ... to me, that does not follow from this part: "you believe the sun, moon and stars were created on Day 1"

Saying the stars were created already doesn't say God did nothing, to me. I can see how it might seem as if it was that way by guessing, but it's a wrong guess about how I see it. On Day 4 God revealed the Sun, moon and stars, and I explained a part of the how the revealing seems to happen beginning with a key change that happens during Day 3 -- remember?

And if you recall, I mentioned how Isaac Newton got something right, but what was it I was pointing out (you need precision...)

Also, by the way, I did not above anywhere write that I thought the Universe -- the stars, solar systems, etc. were created on "Day 1."

But I did say something else. And what I said made a lot more sense. These are theories, we both are offering, but still I'd like to be understood to say what I said, and not a different thing I'd never say.

Look now it seems you might have just guessed at parts of what I was saying without reading it further above == like the incorrect idea I said the stars were created on Day 1 == and guessing will cause trouble in this kind of detailed discussion, because there are so many details and some of the guessing will be wrong, leading to these troubles we are having.