[_ Old Earth _] creationism essential to christianity?

[spartakis]

Grazer, I'm going to pick up that book. Looks very interesting. Thanks for sharing such a thought provoking and helpful post here.

There is also a good book on the matter called refuting compromise. By Johnathan Sarfati. Should check it out.

 

[Grazer]

I have used the geocentric analogy before but it is worth saying that it was not only the Church that was against Copernicus and Galileo. As you probably know, it was actually the reigning scientific paradigm of the day and at least some of the Church's insistence on it's interpretation of Scripture had to do with appeasing everyone, not just those within the Church. Iirc, Aristotle was the first to propose the geocentric model.

I was aware yes But it was the Aristotlian philosophers who Galileo had run ins with as well. Aristotle was the biggest proponent of the earth centred astronomy

 

[cupid dave]

I was aware yes But it was the Aristotlian philosophers who Galileo had run ins with as well. Aristotle was the biggest proponent of the earth centred astronomy

People forget that Copernicus was a RC priests, too.
The point being that, we must not confuse the authoritarian positions of powerful church and science people of that age with the the writings stated in the Bible.

For instance, the very word for "day" in the Hebrew means a duration of time, not a 24 hour solar day.
The Solar Clock is specifically mentioned as one of the 6 creation steps following right after "day" 3, when the Plant kingdom spontaneously generated from the very first sprouts of life on earth, (i.e.; called grass in English).

What the thoughtful modern Bible reader must do is consider the boundary conditions of the writers back 3362 years ago.
Then, in the days of Moses, when their initial and all so important readership was seeped in the mythology of the Sumerians and other such creation legends.

Using those earlier creation stories as a literary vehicle by which to introduce the factually correct things we can accept today, they had to write in double entendre and dual meanings, subtly implied in the verses, so we today can recognize the accuracy of what they were actually stating as the truth:

Who could have accepted these" six days" as a believable statement back then??