Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections

Right, that's my point. There's nothing in the Bible about it at all, yet you manage to describe your views as "Biblical" rather than, say "Morrisian".

And why not. Creators of fiction have every right to control the story of their characters.

One of the hilariously ignorant things about fundies that pretend the Bible isn't geocentric is the studiously blind eye they turn to the reality that we know what the people who lived in that place and time thought about the subject. There seems to be a misperception (or a cultured ignorance) that the books of the Old Testament are the only writings extant from the era. They are not. They thought the earth was flat, and under a dome. Precisely as described in the Bible.

My what assertive blather. You wouldn't happen to have a bit of evidence for any of it would you?

Unless you show specifically where I've described Flood geology as "biblical" I figure you're blowing hot air.

Unless you produce evidence that I said such a thing you are just blowing hot air.

I don't say the KJV is inerrant, it's a translation, translations aren't inerrant. I thought you wanted to know what translation I use.

None of that reflects anything scientific at all, not geocentrism or any other scientific ism.

Your usual ridiculous straw man. We are to PUT OUR TRUST IN JESUS CHRIST'S DEATH ON THE CROSS TO PAY FOR OUR SINS. That is how we are saved. That is not some dead doctrine, that's the work of the living Christ I'm talking about.l

quote:

---

None of that reflects anything scientific at all, not geocentrism or any other scientific ism.

---

Well, that’s a creative attempt at semantic legerdemain. Of course since the Bible is thoroughly pre-scientific there is no science in there.Unfortunately for you I know that geocentrism is NOT a term restricted to science. It is a term that can quite rightly be applied to ancient cosmologies. And Genesis 1 reflects the geocentric cosmologies of the Ancient Near East, as Captain Stormfield correctly pointed out. Those cosmologies were based on the limited knowledge of the time and were, as a consequence in error.Thus Genesis 1 is geocentric and in error.

Then, as I asked the stormy one, prove it. I have no reason not to take it as simply descriptive of the order of Creation in ancient terminology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I have no reason not to take it as simply descriptive of the order of Creation in ancient terminology.

---

The order - what little is in the cited verses - was not the point or I would have quoted far more to make the order plain. The point is what was created and where - and how it shows that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is geocentric (geocentricity was the whole point - have you forgotten that ?)As for evidence, you can start with this article from the website of a. Christian institution: Teaches or assumesThe more complex but similar Babylonian system is described - and depicted - hereNote that here, as in Genesis, we have a flat watery realm with domed heavens above it (see the blue diagram towards the end of the section on Egyptian/Mesopotamia Cosmology)Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

..and that is the doctrine that you believe. That's exactly my point.

quote:

---

Then, as I asked the stormy one, prove it. I have no reason not to take it as simply descriptive of the order of Creation in ancient terminology.

---

R.C. Sproul said that the scientists were right and the leading lights of Protestantism were wrong.Scripture was misunderstood to contradict science.Heliocentrism was correct.So, what is wrong with biological evolution? (The theory of Evolution is way more consistent with scripture than heliocentrism is)

Please quote.Evolution requires death, scripture says death didn't enter until the Fall.