dmalbrecht : "It doesn't really matter that you yourself say that heliocentrism does not go against the Bible. The vast majority of people in the past and some today do say that it is against the Bible and they cite numerous Bible verses to support their claims."

Yes, we addressed that already. And like I said before, the citations are wrong and have no relation to the debate at all. We have already talked about the verses that "supports" geocentricity and this goes for the links that you gave earlier. The supporters of geocentrism forgot the fact that the words were written in the point of view of a person ON EARTH. This violates the background part when undergoing biblical hermeneutics. So you want to talk about science, they already violated the science of hermeneutics.

"You say that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is not a Biblical issue, but I think Copernicus and Galileo would disagree with you lol. The geo/heliocentric debate was most definitely a Biblical issue and the only reason it is not debated anymore is because most people actually accept the scientific evidence."

No it is not. If you understand church history, this is a battle between Aristotelian Science vs Modern Science. The Bible did not suggest or claim that Earth was the center of the universe, Aristotle did. And with the church taking the wisdom from Greek philosophy, they also took the mathematics and the science made by the Greeks. There is truth in what the Greeks found, but the church did not understand that the field of science is fallible unlike the Bible, and theories can be considered true until they are proven false (scientific method). And what the church did is imposing their understanding (and pretty much the understanding of most of the world at that time) into their understanding of scripture, causing massive misinterpretation of scripture. The church was not willing to let go of it, and use scripture to "support" their views.

"You fail to recognize that the only reason that you and I do not see geo/heliocentrism as a problem due to SCIENCE."

Actually...I did, when I said that it is a science issue.

"Without the discovery of heliocentrism it is safe to assume that both of us would believe in geocentrism based on what is said in the Bible; however, the scientific discovery of heliocentrism provided us with a new context with which to interpret what was said in the Bible; therefore, by accepting heliocentrism you have set a precedent that science can provide the context used to interpret scripture."

"Maybe you will try say that even without science you wouldn't think that the Bible supports geocentrism. I would say you're probably in denial."

No, accepting heliocentrism sets a precedent that we have more information and knowledge of the universe that I don't really need to read scripture. I don't need heliocentrism to know that the sun stood still when Joshua was fighting against his enemies in Canaan. The text is enough for me to know that the sun stood still from the point of view of the people on earth. We don't want to do what the early Catholic church did during the time of Galileo and impose what we know into scripture. That is why I consistently tell you that by reading the text BY ITSELF, there is nowhere in the Bible that claims that the sun revolves around the earth, both implicitly and explicitly. Therefore it is not a Bible issue.

"The difference between young-earth and old-earth believers is that old-earthers continue to use science to help interpret the Bible and its context and young-earthers reject science and use their own idea of what they WANT the Bible to say to interpret the Bible, while warping and cramming science into their own narrow perspective. For example, saying the speed of light has decreased."

For a person who wants more sympathy from people by not saying that young earth is the only literal and correct interpretation of creation, this statement above is not helping. This is an insult to those who are in the field of science who believe in young earth, including myself. I have told you before (from a different thread) that I have less of an issue with "old earth" than "evolution". I already told you that the speed of light decreasing theory is not even close to a majority belief of young earth and that those who believe this are committing intellectual suicide in physics. You want to read the Bible without imposing any knowledge outside from the Bible, just read it with the context of what the Bible says. Those who make the Bible what they WANT to know are usually heretics and apostates. And I don’t need to impose any new information to read that it is young earth. Both by PLAINLY READING it and BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS, Young Earth Creationists want to be faithful with what the text SAYS. Young Earth study science the same way as how old earthers do. They however want to be faithful with what the Bible SAYS. They do not use science to support what they believe. Their goal is to be faithful to scripture without committing intellectual dishonesty on science. If you study science, that is one of the key things that they teach to those who study science. You don't want to manipulate results to support your side.

Your statement was a horrible turn to what you are trying to prove about your view of young earthers. That was an ignorant statement. The way I have been arguing should prove you wrong about what you said about young earthers. (Granted, there are those on both sides who would do that, but I am talking about respectable people on both sides.)

I read through your statements about the universe looking old and God’s truthfulness. I have a question. When God created Adam and Eve, and the trees on the ground, do you believe that they started as seeds and babies, or were they immediately created as fully grown trees and actual adults? We do not know God’s purpose of creating the universe the way it is, but there is a purpose with how God created them. Our own sun itself is not a young star, but the sun is the way it is because it needs to be big enough for us to survive on earth. If the sun is any smaller, earth would be a cold wasteland. If it is larger, earth would be a worldwide desert. So God created the sun with the age it is to allow us and everything on earth to survive. It has their purpose.

Like I said before, I'm not sure how an enormous dinosaur would find shelter in a marsh. Most young-earthers believe the earth is about 6000 years old so it should be pretty safe to assume the vegetation has not changed dramatically in only a few thousand years. So unless you know of certain gigantic species of plants that inhabited this area of the Middle East that are capable of sheltering or concealing an enormous dinosaur, then your interpretation is off. (Correct me if I'm wrong about where the Book of Job takes place)

when I said shelter, I meant it would be a place for them to lay down and sleep. And again, it’s not that we know all of the plants that ever existed on this earth. This could give us clues of a plant that we may not have discovered.

Also, I never said the words Behemoth and Leviathan were dramatic descriptions, I said the language describing them was; for example, breathing fire, tail like a cedar, etc. If you're going to take everything literally, then you would also have to believe that horses laugh, etc. Also, the text says its tail "sways" like a cedar, which could just be indicating its tail flexible and able to bend like a cedar and does not necessarily have any bearing on the creature's size.

Yes, I know that. This language is dramatic, but it serves a purpose: To show how magnificent it is. Indirectly, it shows God’s magnificence.

I also think you are misinterpreting the word local. I am not talking about a flood like in New Orleans, I am also talking about an enormous flood but a regional one. At this point in time humans had not scattered over the earth, so all humans were still eliminated. When the all life on the earth is referenced it is referring to Noah's scope of the earth at that time. I'm also not sure how the flood could have been global if there was already an olive tree growing right after the flood ended.

yeah I got what you are saying, and it's still wrong. One assumption that you are making is that ALL the humans stayed in the Mesopotamian Plain, which...we do not know that.

As for your discussion about an olive tree growing, that can be two things, 1 is a sign from God, making it available for the dove to snatch it, and/or 2, time difference. Look at the time difference between the day that Noah sent the crow with the time Noah sent the Dove. It's significant enough to have an olive tree to start to grow.

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the land was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Why does Peter say "the world at that time", why wouldn't he just say "the world" if the entire world had been destroyed. Peter is referring to the fact that the world at that time was confined to the Mesopotamian Plain.

Do you always read books or literature with the viewpoint of "there has to be deeper meaning to what this sentence actually says"? Peter is talking about the world...at that time. Like literally, the world--the civilizations, the plants, the animals, the environment--at that time...meaning "at that time", or at that "time period." This does not really need to push deeper into it. In fact, it goes consistently with what the rest of the verse says. The world...at that time(literally) was destroyed. You only want to say that so that the flood can be seen as local.

"Any examples of this? Yes, it SAID God told Noah to make a boat and that He caused it to rain."

Let me clarify what I said, which I did not realize that the two paragraphs did not go together from the last post that I made. I meant that there are examples in the Bible that God does not say explain in detail what God did to cause a miracle. That is why I gave a humorous take on this issue on the next paragraph from my last post. And yes, there are plenty of examples of that. Jesus healed the sick, but does not say in detail what happened in the body to make the person feel well again; The Israellites received food when they were on their way to Canaan, it did not record in detail how manna came to the ground. And in the same way, we know that God protected Noah and those in the ark through the disaster. Not only that, God "remembered" them (Genesis 8:1). He did not just leave them in the ark, and then just forget about them till the flood is over. He remembered them and protected them throughout the entire time. There is no need for extra information about how did Noah breathed up there. What we do know, from the DETAILS that are given in scripture, which you still have not responded to, is the MAGNITUDE OF THE FLOOD.

You still have not responded to how a flood can be regional if the descriptions say that it above the mountains by more than 20 feet, the ark landed on Mount Ararat, 40 days 40 nights of rain, flooded for a hundred some days, relating it to the universal and future judgment of this earth that it will be made new, a flood that destroys all life(not just human life), birds have no place to land when the flood waters are receding, and they can only return to the ark, and many others that I probably forgot.

And I would like to add this against your view that God only used the flood to destroy all the people on the earth, which are only located regionally. Have you read Genesis 6, BEFORE the flood came:

"Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth...." (v. 11-13)

"...I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (v. 17)

So far, I have been very consistent on why the Bible says that the flood is global. It is screaming out at you about how the flood is global, both in the old and in the new testament!! There is no other way to avoid this unless your position is to reject it to be true, which is to reject a biblical truth that is nonnegotiable. I will say it again, as a Christian, this is a biblical truth that is nonnegotiable.

"I don't really know what they teach, I've only been here two semesters. It seems like they don't believe in any type of creationism, but I've never really cared enough to ask anyone because I didn't come here because of religion. I'm guessing your school specifically teaches young-earth creationism?"

Nope, my school does not give out an official position on young earth vs old earth. We have a variety of professors here that believe in either positions. That was not my question though...my question is whether your school believes that Noah's flood is global or local, because something tells me that the ELCA is going to mess this one up because of them being more and more away from biblical truth, and yes, my school strongly affirms that Noah's flood is global.

The way I see it...and I don't expect everyone to see it my way...the account of genesis is enough of a description for me as to how the universe/world was created. I don't have the knowledge or wisdom to analyse it from a scientific angle and break it down into specifics, so I just accept it. I know that there will be gaps in my understanding. I take some relief in this passage:

"Job 38:4-11 4 Where were you when I created the earth? Tell me, since you know so much! 5 Who decided on its size? Certainly you'll know that! Who came up with the blueprints and measurements? 6 How was its foundation poured, and who set the cornerstone, 7 While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the angels shouted praise? 8 And who took charge of the ocean when it gushed forth like a baby from the womb? 9 That was me! I wrapped it in soft clouds, and tucked it in safely at night. 10 Then I made a playpen for it, a strong playpen so it couldn't run loose, 11 And said, 'Stay here, this is your place. Your wild tantrums are confined to this place."

If it's good enough for God to provide an general overview of how he created the earth, then it's good enough for me. I don't seek to understand EXACTLY how God made the universe or this world...and sometimes I think it works against us to try. And if that makes me ignorant, then I would rather have wisdom than intellect.

We still haven't conclusively solved how the Egyptians built the pyramids. Let alone pieced together the exact nature of creation. I am of the opinion that we never will.