In the beginning...

Originally posted by CalJust
(Sigh!)

Yes.

And good night to you too...

Ephesians 4:11-15 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12. for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13. until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15. but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ...

Originally posted by CalJust
Not only do you knowingly or unknowingly misrepresent my point, but you draw another red herring across the thread!

The essence of the point I was making (and am still making in this thread) is [b] Biblical exegesis.

In the times before Galileo and Copernicus, scientists DID agree with the church that the earth was flat, and about 6000 years old. ...[text shortened]... minded of Paul's words, when he said: "Surely you are the people, and Wisdom will die with you!"[/b]

It was the church that stuck to their original, now proven wrong, interpretation. Much later they updated the flat-earth belief, but for many the 6000 year old belief has remained stuck.
And, besides the uneasy tension which existed during that time, what difference did it make?
Meaning, now that we know through experience that the world is round-ish, what has changed?
Do we water our crops different, plant the seeds or harvest them in a new way on the basis of this information?
The big deal was, in retrospect, no deal whatsoever.

2. BUT i have a real problem with them repeatedly claiming that this is the ONLY possible interpretation, and that our salvation depends on it. I have shown indisputably that there are knowledgable, sincere and highly respected christian scholars who hold an opposing view.
Well, you have me there: I have literally no idea what you are referencing here.
To my knowledge, no one on here has once made a person's view of the Bible an issue related to salvation--- although RJ comes close to making the two inseparable.
If anything, I have emphatically highlighted the issue of salvation as a complete and separate consideration to the entirety of one's take on the rest of the Bible.
Don't believe God created man directly, as stated in Genesis?
Doesn't matter.
Don't believe any part of Genesis, whatsoever?
Doesn't matter.
Don't believe any part of the Bible to be the inspired Word of God?
Doesn't matter.
Don't accept the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross on your behalf?
Go to hell.

My view on the Bible is that it and it alone can be trusted, but I know it well enough to also know that there is but one issue--- and one issue alone--- when the question is salvation: what do you think of the Christ?

If we accept the fact that there are many, many passages of the Bible that are being interpreted differently by the myriad versions of the Christian Church, each of them with a level of "truth", then we should be careful to trumpet that we are the only ones that are correct.
Well, I guess my list of things which I hold true about the Bible is a little bit longer than previously expressed.
I believe it was written for a specific purpose, and that was for man to know the mind of God, as much as it can be known while on this planet.
It is not to be a source of confusion.

When you said "it was the church that stuck to their original... interpretation," you touched on a topic which requires far more than a few sentences to resolve.
Suffice to say that one thing the church was getting right was its insistence on not relying on disciplines outside of theology to determine the world view... which is precisely the battle which rages today.

It is comical to consider the dogmatic textbook-thumping zealots spewing a "Science first! Science only! Science always!" blind devotion, in light of two things:
1. Science is historically very, very wrong on major points for extended periods of time on the basis of peer pressure; and
2. This is simply a role-reversal to a position which has been declared reprehensible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Meaning, now that we know through experience that the world is round-ish, what has changed?
Do we water our crops different, plant the seeds or harvest them in a new way on the basis of this information?
The big deal was, in retrospect, no deal whatsoever.

Seriously?! You can't think of any substantive changes? 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Seriously?! You can't think of any substantive changes? 😛

You heard what I said: no one today does anything fundamentally different in their day-to-day activities than their counterpart from when the world was considered flat.

No one back then did anything in their daily functions with a mind on the shape of the world.
No one today does anything in their daily functions with a mind on the shape of the world.
The overwhelming majority of our daily functions don't even consider the thought at all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You heard what I said: no one today does anything fundamentally different in their day-to-day activities than their counterpart from when the world was considered flat.

No one back then did anything in their daily functions with a mind on the shape of the world.
No one today does anything in their daily functions with a mind on the shape of the world.
The overwhelming majority of our daily functions don't even consider the thought at all.

I'm trying to figure out if you're playing dumb or actually that ignorant. 😕

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'm trying to figure out if you're playing dumb or actually that ignorant. 😕

He is smiply saying that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only thing that truely matters to him. He does not care about the details of science concerning the shape of the earth, or what the exact meaning of something or other that has no effect on his salvation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

No one today does anything in their daily functions with a mind on the shape of the world.
The overwhelming majority of our daily functions don't even consider the thought at all.

OK, let's humor you.

What about:
- watching TV relayed from satellites
- air travel
- weather predictions

I guess these would be affected by the shape of the earth?

EDIT: on second thoughts, (to follow up on SG's question) you obviously can't be that stupid as to think that scientific discoveries (such as the shape of the earth) don't really affect our day-to-day living. So maybe you are building up to say that whether you believe in a 6000 year old universe or a 13 billion yr old one, it doesn't really affect the man in the street.

If that where your angle, i would almost agree with you, because (if my own circle of acquaintances is anything to go by) most people are totally bored by the Creation vs Evolution Debate.

Yet on RHP it is seen as a matter of Life and Death, and eternally so!

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, let's humor you.

What about:
- watching TV relayed from satellites
- air travel
- weather predictions

I guess these would be affected by the shape of the earth?

EDIT: on second thoughts, (to follow up on SG's question) you obviously can't be that stupid as to think that scientific discoveries (such as the shape of the earth) don't r ...[text shortened]... n vs Evolution Debate.

Yet on RHP it is seen as a matter of Life and Death, and eternally so!

What about:
- watching TV relayed from satellites
- air travel
- weather predictions

I guess these would be affected by the shape of the earth?
So (if I read you right) what you're saying is, the crappy programming on television, the insufferable delays in air travel and the laughably dismal record of weather prognosticators are all related to a round-earth perspective?

I kid.

But I'm going to take it a step further.
Let's say the world-as-a-plate folks were right (not that the Bible espouses such a view; it doesn't), and all of our subsequent discoveries worked off of that model.
We'd still have satellites, just different flight/orbit patterns.
We'd still have air travel.
We'd still have goof balls making asses out of themselves making wild (and mostly inaccurate) predictions about the weather.

And we'd still go about our daily lives not giving the shape of the earth a second thought, ever.
While the shape of the planet is a fact, it's not a transcendent truth, one which impresses or impacts all reasoning people.
Most folks don't even think about it, ever, unless pressed.

So maybe you are building up to say that whether you believe in a 6000 year old universe or a 13 billion yr old one, it doesn't really affect the man in the street.
That's part of it.

Yet on RHP it is seen as a matter of Life and Death, and eternally so!
Ha!
Couldn't agree more.
It's a red herring issue that is a guaranteed waste of time without any possible resolve with respect to a consensus.
Amazingly, Christians take the bait every time.

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, let's humor you.

What about:
- watching TV relayed from satellites
- air travel
- weather predictions

I guess these would be affected by the shape of the earth?

EDIT: on second thoughts, (to follow up on SG's question) you obviously can't be that stupid as to think that scientific discoveries (such as the shape of the earth) don't r ...[text shortened]... n vs Evolution Debate.

Yet on RHP it is seen as a matter of Life and Death, and eternally so!

Believe it or not, we could have done without satelites and air travel.