Premise 1: Once again, it is another disputed subject among Christians
1) Some believe the relevant verses are merely poetic and
metaphors while others believe they were literal. You can compare the teachings
of Mike Winger, Michael Heiser, William Lane Craig and Ben Stanhope to be clear
on this matter.
2) Some believe the verses if accurately understood then
they are clearly the pictures of the world we see today while others believe
otherwise. Young and Old Earth creationist takes hold of former view to some
extent of minor disagreements (for e.g. watch debate between Dr. Hugh Ross and
Kent Hovind) while Stephen Meyers (not the one who is champion of Intelligent
Design movement), Bible project, Michael Heiser, etc. takes the later view.
3) Some think God accommodated and narrowed down tounderstanding of the peoples of those ancient days while others think this
would make God a fallible God
4) Some think the Bible is written for all generations in aneasy grasp way while others think the Bible is written according to cultural
languages. The former view has been propagated by Kent Hovind in his debate
with Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy.
Premise 2: What if the Bible teaches a Flat earth?
1) That would just prove the honesty of the scripture which
shows historical reality of the worldview peoples in that old times held about
the earth and universe. Biologos holds this idea.
2) That would show God was just using that worldview asvehicle for his theological messages
3) That would show the way we can relate God's conduct with
other cultures where he is showing his supremacy over false gods using their
worldviews so that gentiles and God's peoples might have a proper connection in
understanding which God is mighty and true one
Premise 3: So…what are we to conclude?
1) We can simply go to that timeline just to understand the
original messages God was giving to his peoples which is an art of exegesis. We
don't bear pressure whether the ancient peoples understood the world
differently than us in a metaphor sense or literal sense. If this issue hasn’t created
any threat to Christian identity among scholars, why should it be a reason to
be a barrier for us?
2) The ultimate knowledge is about who God is, what God is
and how he connects himself with the world he created. For us it might be
galaxies, stars, planets, etc. But for God, it could be a three-tier world
system, a temple simply to connect with his peoples. He doesn't need our way of
seeing this world. And we aren't obligated to redefine our worldview. The
understanding of this world may change but God's identification and nature
would never.
3) This is again another debatable topic and we cannot spend
and waste our precious time having arguments with our brother and sisters. It’s
not about winning in argument with them. It’s all about what and how God is
revealing about himself to us. The worldview is a matter of vehicle agent and
not the object of focus.
4) We cannot also simply say to believe your Bible not
scholars because our Bible reading automatically derives our worldview into its
verses! Give so-called flat earth proof-texts to a child who doesn't know
anything about the world. He probably comes up with similar conclusion that
Bible appears teaching a Flat earth! Hence, we also need to understand what
scholars have to say and where they take us essentially.
***
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
0 Comments