Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
No. In fact, I've quite consciously avoided insulting you, whereas you have lost no opportunity to insult me. Read back through this exchange, and tell me honestly which of us has posted the more hateful statements.
And I'm not that old, either.
The "Christian denominations" that do not believe in the Bible are either no more Christian than Osama or are simply living with an unsupportable contradiction.
The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church certainly believes in the Bible; they just don't share your literalist interpretation of it.
by John M Brentnall and Russell M. Grigg
First Published in:
Creation 18(1)
December 1995-February 1996
CHARLES DARWIN'S thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.
Darwin did not lack religious influences in his youth. Baptized an Anglican and steeped in his mother's Unitarianism, young Charles was brought up to pray. He used to run the mile or so from home to school, concerning which he wrote:
'I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided.' 1
He had dropped out of medical studies after two years at Edinburgh, and his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Charles wasn't sure whether he could accept everything in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, he later wrote,
'I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.'2
During his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was greatly impressed by Paley's Evidences of Christianity and his Natural Theology (which argues for the existence of God from design). He recalled:
'I could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley,'3 and, 'I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's Natural Theology. I could almost formerly have said it by heart.'4
In a letter of condolence to a bereaved friend at that time, he wrote of 'so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords,' compared with 'how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear.' 5
His intention to enter the ministry, he wrote, was never 'formally given up, but died a natural death'6 when, on leaving Cambridge, he joined HMS Beagle as unpaid naturalist. However, the religious influences in his life did not abate. His official position was that of gentleman companion to the captain, and for the next five years Darwin heard the Bible read and expounded on a regular basis. Captain Robert FitzRoy was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory. Darwin later recalled his own doctrinal orthodoxy when, in discussion with some of the officers, much to their amusement he quoted the Bible as 'an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.'7 And at Buenos Aires, he and another officer requested a chaplain to administer the Lord's Supper to them before they ventured into the wilds of Tierra del Fuego.8
Despite all of the above religious influences in his life, the decline of Darwin's faith began when he first started to doubt the truth of the first chapters of Genesis. This unwillingness to accept the Bible as meaning what it said probably started with and certainly was greatly influenced by his shipboard reading matter—the newly published first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (the second volume, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo). This was a revolutionary book for that time. It subtly ridiculed belief in recent creation in favour of an old Earth, and denied that Noah's Flood was world-wide; this, of course, was also a denial of divine judgment. Based on James Hutton's dictum that all natural processes have continued as they were from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4), or 'uniformitarianism', Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'.9 And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said, 'I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works'.10
Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote, 'I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian'.11
When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter—that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness12 rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species13 was the result. On the way, in 1844, he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker, 'I am almost convinced... that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable'. Concerning this, Ian Taylor writes, 'Many commentators have pointed out that the 'murder' he spoke of was in effect the murder of God'.14
Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: 'the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become'; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: 'the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us'; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: 'the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events'; and his rejection of the Gospel events: 'they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses'. Summing up the above, he wrote, 'by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation'.15 On another occasion he wrote, 'I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age'.16 He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, '... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually.'17
One immediate effect of Darwin's rejection of the Bible was his loss of all comfort from it. The hopeless grief of his later letters to the bereaved, contrasts sharply with the earlier letter of condolence quoted above. In 1851, his dearly loved daughter Annie, aged 10, died from what the attending physician called a 'Bilious Fever with typhoid character'.18 Charles was devastated, and wrote, 'Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life'.19 Two years later, to a friend who had lost a child, Darwin's only appeal was to 'time', which 'softens and deadens... one's feelings and regrets.'20
Surrounded as he was by unbelievers, and having soaked his mind in literature that rejected the concept of divine judgment in Earth's history, Charles mused, 'I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine'.24
The descent into darkness did not stop there. In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote, 'Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, "it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind." I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.'25 In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, 'I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God'.26 In the last year of his life, when the Duke of Argyll suggested to him that certain purposes seen in nature 'were the effect and the expression of mind', Charles looked at him very hard and said, 'Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,' and he shook his head vaguely, adding, 'it seems to go away'.27 And about the same time he wrote to his old friend, Joseph Hooker28, 'I must look forward to Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth'.29
Thus did this tragically mistaken man drift from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism.30 While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvellous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer 'blackness of darkness for ever.'31
Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did.
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 191 1, Vol. 1, p. 29. Return to text
ibid, Vol. 1, p. 39. Return to text
ibid,Vol. 1, p. 41. Charles's best subjects at Cambridge were Paley and Euclid. Return to text
ibid,Vol. 2. p. l5. (C. Darwin to John Lubbock, November 15, 1859). Return to text
ibid,Vol. 1, p. 153. (C. Darwin to D. Fox, April 23, 1829). Return to text
ibid,Vol. 1, p. 39. Return to text
ibid,Vol. 1, p. 277. Return to text
ibid,Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, p. 54. Return to text
Glass, Bentley, Editor, Forerunners of Darwin. 1745-1859. Chapter by Francis Haber (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p.259, quoted by Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey, 1969, p. 60. Return to text
Ref 1 ,Vol. 2, p. 374. (C. Darwin to Miss Buckley, Sir Charles Lyell's secretary February 23, 1875). Return to text
ibid,Vol. 1, p. 277. Note: the words 'or the beliefs of any barbarian, in Charles's original Autobiography (written in 1876 for his family) were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, 'its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc' (ref. 8, p. 317). The uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles's granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles's irreligious nature, and which 'might embarrass the Darwin name'. (Source: Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, pp. 115 and 449, note 1.) Return to text
See Carl Wieland, 'Darwin's real message: have you missed it?', Creation magazine, Vol. 14 No. 4, September-November 1992, pp. 1618; also Don Batten, 'Darwin's Contribution', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September-November 1995, p. 25. Return to text
Charles Darwin wrote many other monographs and books, of which the most well known is probably The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which deals inter alia with human evolution, published in 1871. Return to text
Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 126. Return to text
p. 278. Curiously, Darwin continued, 'But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often [sic] inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most staking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.' Return to text
Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658. Return to text
James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Michigan, 1994, p. 46. Return to text
Ref. 15, p. 384. Return to text
Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 348. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, April 29, 1851). Return to text
ibid, Vol. 1, p. 355. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, August 10, 1853). Return to text
Although Erasmus died seven years before Charles was born, Charles undoubtedly was familiar with both his liberal views and his writings about evolution. Charles read Erasmus's book Zoonomia twice, once in his youth and "a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years" (Ref. 1. Vol. 1, p. 34). Return to text
Ref. 8, p. 10. Return to text
Ref. 15, p. 256. Return to text
Ref. 8, pp. 10, 318. Return to text
Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p.281. Return to text
Ref. 15, pp. 634-35. Return to text
Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 285 footnote. Return to text
Ref. 16, p.46. Return to text
For an account of Darwin's almost-life-long illness, see Russell Grigg, 'Darwin's Mystery illness', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September-November 1995, pp. 28-30. Return to text
In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286. Return to text
Jude 13. Return to text
Untrue. In fact C-14 dating is now routinely calibrated using dendrochronology.
The Grand Canyon is supposed to be the result of that little river running through it for ages, and yet, its entry point is about 3,000 feet below the highest point.
So there was geological uplift of a mountain range in the interim. What's the problem?
The speed of light is seen as the same (light years is a distance, not a speed) and yet it has been controlled, slowed down, sped up in a lab, and we know that it has naturally been slowing down over the years.
The speed of light in the vacuum has never been altered. Its apparent speed in a medium can be reduced, but not (AFAIK) increased. And claims it has changed over time do not stand up to careful scrutiny.
Jesus also said ...
" and upon this rock I will build my following and the gates of hell will not prevail against my people ! "
Not a very passive group - concept !
Is the ’erets (earth) flat?Equivocal language in the geography of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely First published in: Critic Paul H. Seely claims that the Bible teaches that the earth is a flat disc consisting of a single continent floating on a circular sea. In so doing, he once again makes the mistake of reading into equivocal biblical language definite statements of cosmology. In a previous article,1 I explored and refuted the contentions of Paul H. Seely that the Bible taught that the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) was a solid dome over the earth. In this study, we will address a subsequent article by Seely in which he argues that the Bible teaches that the earth is a flat disc with a surrounding sea and a continent that floats upon this sea. We find, not surprisingly, that Seely follows much the same line of argument as he did in his previous articles: ‘When a biblical text is interpreted outside of its historical context, it is often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the reader’s own culture, time and beliefs. This has happened more than once to Genesis 1. To avoid distorting Genesis 1 in this way, the serious exegete will insist upon placing this chapter within its own historical context. When we do this, the meaning of “earth” and “seas” in Gen 1:10 is found to be quite different from the modern western notions.’2 Following this statement is an impressive and informative list proving that several early ‘scientifically naïve’ societies thought either that the earth was flat and/or was surrounded by water on all sides, upon which the land floated. Seely determines from this data that: ‘Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the “earth” in Gen 1 is most probably that of a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc. In addition the Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts. It is, therefore, all the more historically probable that the writer and first readers of Gen 1 thought of the earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc.’3 ‘Being a scientifically naive people, it is probable that like other scientifically naive tribal peoples the Hebrews thought of the earth as being surrounded by a circular sea and floating upon that single surrounding sea.’4 Seely appears to be assuming that ‘scientific knowledge’, i.e. the conclusions of modern science, is the only source of true knowledge. And, amazingly for an author in a Reformed theological journal, Seely seems to be forgetting that Scripture is propositional revelation from God and therefore is also a source of true knowledge — in fact, it is the ultimate and final source of such knowledge! Seely continues: ‘The writer and first readers of Gen 1 also inherited Mesopotamian concepts about the natural world from the patriarchs and no doubt were influenced by Egyptian concepts during their stay in Egypt. Moses, in fact, was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22; Exod 2:10). It is highly probable, therefore, that the writer and first readers of Gen 1 defined the sea in the same way that all people in the ancient Near East did, namely, as a single circular body of water in the middle of which the flat earth-disc floated and from which all wells, springs and rivers derived their water.’4 This argument is very weak indeed. The patriarchs worshipped God and believed His Word, not Mesopotamian myths. There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs. Seely must demonstrate this, not simply assert it. Also, it is highly unlikely that Moses and the Israelites were influenced by Egyptian concepts. Although Moses was educated as an Egyptian, he was also the recipient of divine revelation which stands in stark contrast to any Egyptian teaching. Furthermore, the Israelites lived separately from the Egyptians (in the land of Goshen) and apparently maintained their culture and customs and did not intermarry with the Egyptians. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they would have been educated alongside the Egyptians — and even more so when they became the Egyptians’ slaves. In my previous article, I demonstrated the illogic and the danger of this position in terms of biblical inerrancy, and we need not detain ourselves by elaborating on all of these points. Instead, we will proceed directly to the scriptural citations at issue and show that, once again, Seely is either misinterpreting what he is reading or else is taking advantage of equivocal terminology to read his own ideas into the text. Gone flatThe programmatic text for this section is Genesis 1:10: ‘And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.’ By itself this verse tells us virtually nothing about the nature of the earth and seas. It is so equivocal that one may read into the text either a flat earth or a round one. It is worthwhile to remind the reader of one point made in our earlier article, that it is just as much possible that the many pagan parallels cited by Seely are just as easily read to be distortions of the original and correct information about the nature of the earth. In other words, they could have misread the message and forced an interpretation upon the data just as Seely has done! Nevertheless, Genesis 1:10 certainly does not indicate in and of itself a flat earth.5 Seely next attempts to read out from the text the idea of a flat earth based on the presumption that a solid firmament is also taught; this point we refuted in our previous article. Finally, Seely deals with some Scriptures outside of Genesis that concern the nature of the earth, beginning with Isaiah 40:22: ‘It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ….’ Apologists dealing with this issue often cite Isaiah 40:22 with the explanation that Hebrew, having no specific word for sphere, may here indicate a spherical earth. Of course we may also read into the text a flat circle, as Seely does. Interestingly, Seely attempts to confirm his own interpretation by making an error exactly like that of a skeptic I once confronted on this issue: ‘If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning “ball”.’6 Dur, however, no-more indicates sphericity than the word used in Isaiah 40:22, for it is used by Isaiah elsewhere thus (Isaiah 29:3): ‘And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.’ Obviously, unless they were professional gymnasts as well as tacticians, the soldiers could not camp in the shape of a sphere around the city! Based on this, this word appears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than specifying a given shape.7 Seely offers two citations in support of a ‘flat earth’ view that we need not spend much time on: Daniel 4:10, 11 and 20, and Job 37:3. The Daniel passage is actually a statement by a pagan king, which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that view. And it is a vision, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream of cannibalistic cows and even cannibalistic ears of wheat (Genesis 41). And Job 37:3 hardly requires a flat-earth reading — it merely states that lightning occurs all over the earth. Even if it did teach a flat-earth reading, it would prove only that Elihu believed such a thing — not everything reported in the Bible is endorsed in the Bible. As is standard to note in such cases, the statements of characters in the Bible are not automatically granted inerrancy unless the speaker is either God or indicated to be inspired of God. One statement that is made by God that deserves serious consideration is found in Job 38:13: ‘That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?’ Isolated from its context, this verse might be taken, as Seely supposes, to refer to a pancake-like earth: ‘In a clearly cosmological context, not just local, this verse speaks of dawn grasping the earth by its “extremity or hem” (kanap; cf. Num 15:38; 1 Sam 15:27) and shaking the wicked out of it. The verse is comparing the earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. A globe is not really comparable to a blanket or garment in this way. You cannot pick up a globe at one end. It does not even have an end.’8 However, the full context of this verse makes it clear that the meaning Seely finds in it is not intended at all. How does the dawn ‘grasp’ anything? Is Seely also suggesting some sort of primitive belief in an anthropomorphic sun god? Are the wicked literally ‘shaken’ by the sunrise? Is the bringing of dawn accompanied by the sight of nighttime burglars rolling through the dusty streets of villages like tumbleweeds? Clearly this verse refers to no more than the visible horizon that the dawn ‘grasps’ as the sun rises. It is phenomenological and poetic in every sense of its expression. Sea changeSeely’s next assertion concerns the biblical understanding of the relationship between the land and the sea. In his words: ‘In every pre-scientific cosmology which I have seen that mentions the sea, the earth is described as circular, floating in a circular sea … .’9 The Bible, Seely insists, preserves this inaccuracy. His first citation for proof is explained thus: ‘As to the shape of this one collection of seas, various OT references show that the Hebrews conceived of it as circular. Prov 8:27b, speaking of creation, says that Wisdom was present “When he (God) inscribed a circle on the face of the Deep”. Job 26:10 similarly says, “He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters as a boundary of light and darkness”.’10 Our answer here is the same as it was previously: there is no specific Hebrew word for sphere; hence these cites are equivocal. They could refer to either a pancake-like shape or to a globe. Seely continues: ‘The bronze hemispherical (or cylindrical) sea which was set up in the temple courtyard in 1 Kgs 7:23 also seems to indicate by its shape that the earthly sea was conceived of as circular. For although a circular water container would not be unusual, this basin of water could easily have been called simply a basin or laver, as was the case with the simpler original (Exod 30:18). Instead, it was called a sea (yam). This name “sea” for the laver parallels the name of the laver which was set up in Babylonian temples and called apsu, the word for the water surrounding and under the earth.’11 This is all very interesting, and goes far in proving that perhaps Solomon or his priests had such conceptions of the world, but in terms of proving that this is the teaching of the Bible itself, it accomplishes nothing. It has no more effect than quoting the words of Nebuchadnezzar and Elihu. This argument by Seely has somewhat more strength: ‘The biblical picture of the earth surrounded by a sea seems to be reflected in several different phrases used in Scripture. Rudhardt introduces us to one of those phrases. After noting that in the cosmographies of many people waters “make up a vast expanse, in the middle of which lies the earth, like an island”, he goes on to say that these surrounding waters “may be divided into two oceans, on either side of the world”. … The phrase which he thereby introduces is “from sea to sea” as found in Ps 72:8 and Zech 9:10b, both of which describe the geographically universal rule of the coming Messiah as being ׏from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth”. ‘The context of these verses which are clearly speaking of the geographically universal rule of the Messiah over all nations on earth (Ps. 72:9–11; Zech 9:10b; cf. Ps 2:8 and Mic 5:4) implies that the phrase “from sea to sea” is a reference to the “two oceans on either side of the world” which enclose within their grasp the entire earth, the two oceans “in the middle of which lies the earth like an island”. The phrase “from sea to sea” refers to two specific bodies of water, but not to these bodies of water just in themselves but as representative parts of the “two oceans on either side of the world”. This understanding of the phrase is strengthened by the fact that in Mesopotamia where a universal sea was understood to be surrounding the world, the phrase “from the lower sea to the upper sea” [both understood as parts of the sea surrounding the world] denotes the entire known world.’12 It fits such a conception; but it also fits a modern conception just as easily. Once again, we encounter equivocal language in the Scripture: the size, location, and nature of these ‘seas’ is not defined at all. Indeed, Seely can find only one verse that comes close to making such a definition: ‘The biblical terms “eastern sea” and “western sea”, especially as used in Zech 14:8, where the context is one of apocalyptic universality, also seem to refer to the eastern and western halves of the ocean that surround the earth.’13 The context is indeed ‘apocalyptic universality’, but unless these waters also go north and south, they are hardly serving to supply the entire world — even if it is conceived as a disc! The simple fact is that this passage in no way identifies the nature, extent, or size of either sea; but they are easy to identify, and there is no conception here at all that indisputably describes the circular ‘world-sea’ that Seely suggests. In the only other places where the ‘western sea’ is referred to, it clearly refers to the Mediterranean (Deuteronomy 11:24, 34:2; Joel 2:20); this Seely would probably not dispute. References to the ‘eastern sea’ are no more plentiful (Joel 2:20, Ezek. 47:18–19), but the latter passage strongly suggests a body of water that is nearby, namely the Dead Sea — or else, it suggests a very strange sort of border! ‘And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, and from Damascus, and from Gilead, and from the land of Israel by Jordan, from the border unto the east sea. And this is the east side. And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this is the south side southward.’ The Dead Sea lies in a position that is right in line with the given locations. If this ‘eastern sea’ is indeed the sort of ‘world-sea’ that Seely proposes, then these borders, as described, run in a perfectly sensible line, except for a sudden and very, very narrow diversion to the east! Float your boatSeely’s final effort attempts to prove that the Bible teaches that the land of the earth floats upon a sea of water. His verse of concern is Psalm 136:6: ‘To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth forever.’ We will agree with Seely, against Harris, that this passage does not refer to ‘land masses above the shoreline’. Our agreement with Seely continues through the following: ‘The exact relationship of the earth to the waters is expressed by the preposition ‘al. The preposition ‘al usually means “upon” … ‘Unfortunately, the only time the verb raqa is used with the preposition ‘al in the OT is in Psalm 136:6. But raqa has a close synonym, namely radad, which also apparently means ‘beat’ or ‘spread out’; and this synonym is used with the preposition ‘al in 1 Kings 6:32 where it describes overlaying the cherubim with gold plating: ‘he spread out the gold [over or] upon (‘al) the cherubim’. It seems very probable, therefore, that the synonymous phraseology in Psalm 136:6 (especially in the light of Isaiah 40:19 which uses raqa in the sense of ‘overlay’) means that the earth is spread out over or upon the sea. As gold overlays the cherubim in 1 Kings 6:32, so the earth overlays the sea in Psalm 136:6. ‘The verb, “found” (yasad), which is used in Ps 24:2 means to lay down a foundational base for a building or wall (1 KGs 5:17, 6:37, 7:10, 16:34; Ezra 3:10–12) or to set something upon a foundational base (Cant [Song of Solomon] 5:15; Ps 104:5). With either meaning the most natural meaning of ‘al would be its primary meaning, “upon”. This is confirmed by the three other times that ‘al is used in the OT with the verb “found” (yasad): Cant 5:15; Ps 104:5; Amos 9:6. In all three cases, the meaning, “upon”, is demanded by the context. Ps 104:5 especially demands that ‘al be translated “upon” in Ps 24:2 because just like Ps 24:2 it is speaking of the founding of the earth.’14 Thus far, this is all quite acceptable within a creationist paradigm, as we will demonstrate. Our disagreement begins with this assertion: ‘Ps 24:2 is saying, then, that God “founded”, that is, firmly placed the earth upon the seas, the seas being a foundational base. The flat earth-continent is resting on the seas. The word “seas” (yammim) reminds us of Gen 1:10b where God called the gathered waters of the tehom “Seas” (yammim); and this again tells us, as did Ps 136:6 that Gen 1:10 is saying that the flat earth-continent was founded “upon” (or on top of) the sea, fixed in place but floating on the sea, in exact accord with the historical meaning.’15 Once again, Seely has slipped in a premise without warrant. We may agree with the idea of the land being set ‘upon’ the sea, but to say that it ‘floats’ upon that sea is not at all indicated in the text. The biblical description accords with an accepted creationist paradigm that postulates the pre-diluvian existence of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Genesis 7:11) which produced most of the water of the Genesis Flood. It would be perfectly proper to have described the land as having been ‘spread out’ over this vast subterranean water source. It would also be perfectly proper for what was left of this water source to continue to be referred in the same terms after the Flood when it would still be a source for underground springs (Genesis 49:25, Deuteronomy 33:13). ConclusionAs was the case with Seely’s previous article, we have found that there is no warrant for reading an erroneous conception of the earth into the biblical text. Equivocal language, and a proper understanding of what has been written, demonstrate yet again that, unlike the arguments of the critics, ‘the Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). References and Notes
|
So what? The Theory of Evolution does not depend on any aspect of Darwin's life, character, or religious beliefs.
Incidentally, one could easily argue that Unitarians are not true Christians. There are essentials of the Christian faith which they reject outright.
Are you the ultimate arbiter of who is, and who isn't a Christian? They could say the same about you. And so could a spokesman from any other sect of Christians, or so-called Christian fundamentalists. Why would anyone care?
Also, read the footnotes in this article. They support its contentions.
Which, right or wrong, are irrelevent to any discussion of evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.