8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 112:
Line 112: + + + + + + +
→My edits and Orlenzia's comments
:To answer your question, what I want changed is the creation view section, back to what I made it.
:To answer your question, what I want changed is the creation view section, back to what I made it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::No worries. Nobody on this site trusts anyone else :(. When the argument first came up I thought along the same lines as you, but then I read one of the cited articles: [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm] and it changed my mind. That is why I think this should stay. The article is really interesting. You should check it out. Very well cited. The conclusion:
::{{Quote Box|"From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch."}}
::Ironically, it was one of the YECs on this site who insisted on the section being in because it was literal Bible, and then one of the liberals agreed because he thought it put YEC in perspective. My motives are more along the lines of practicality (it seemed agreeable at the time, there haven't been any edits for a while before now) and also because, although I love the Bible, I think it is important to understand that some parts of it, such as these passages and ones on slavery, etc. suggest that the Bible is also a product of the times in many ways, and excessive literalism can be a double edged sword. Are you YEC? A literalist? I'd urge you to read the paper and think about it before changing the article back. But that's just my opinion. Is there any reason you have to disagree with the citation? Any contradictory evidence or citations?[[User:Orlenzia|Orlenzia]]