Moderator: Moderators
a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
And - if God's word is infallible, WHY does this AiG article undermine the clear wording of Matthew 4:8 (which strongly implies that we live on a flat Earth which of course even AiG accept is untrue) by questioning whether the mountain mentioned in the infallible Word of God at this verse actually exists?
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/
MisterGordons wrote:a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
And - if God's word is infallible, WHY does this AiG article undermine the clear wording of Matthew 4:8 (which strongly implies that we live on a flat Earth which of course even AiG accept is untrue) by questioning whether the mountain mentioned in the infallible Word of God at this verse actually exists?
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/
We all know that Ashley Haworth-Roberts hates Ken Ham and other YECs. He will find any fault in them. Answers in Genesis is right to point out that Biologos and others are hypocritical in their Christian claims but Ashley Haworth-Roberts only seeks this as another excuse to malign Ken Ham. His excuse to claim that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is desperate cherry picking and relies on taking things out of context and ignoring other teachings in the Christian Bible. If Ashley Haworth-Roberts were intellectually honest and bothered to search he would have his answers. Here is one of many. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
a_haworthroberts wrote:My email from 8 March:
''Groups like Answers in Genesis insist the Bible is infallible (not simply God's true Word but also scientifically and historically complete and without error), tend to advocate a 'plain' reading of scripture, and whenever appropriate urge Christians to take the meaning of texts literally rather than in some other way.
So their treatment of Matthew 4:8 in that article by Danny Faulkner is somewhat interesting.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
''Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.'' (New International Version.)
We know (conspiracy theorists may differ) from observations made from eg the International Space Station and Apollo 8 that Earth's shape is a sphere. And that from the top of Everest you would not be able to view all the kingdoms on Earth. (That might be possible if the planet was a circular flat disc and the planet was small enough and the mountain of vast height, perhaps reaching to the 'sky'.)
So Faulkner - because he knows Earth is a sphere but still would insist that every verse of scripture is infallible (including scientifically) - has to try and get around the problem of this verse and how its text suggests that the writer did assume Earth was flat (if the meaning was intended to be taken literally).
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... arth-flat/
Faulkner questions whether the mountain mentioned in Matthew 4:8 actually exists (maybe he's suggesting that Jesus was taken 'up', as mentioned in Luke 4:5, higher than the summit of any very high mountain): ''However, if this mountain of Matthew 4:8 with its view of the entire earth is literal, then where is it? Those who pursue this line of reasoning have never determined the location of this hypothetical mountain.''
So the 'infallible' Word of God says Jesus was taken by the devil to a very high mountain (to the summit?) and shown all the kingdoms of the world. And Answers in Genesis are questioning whether the mountain in question exists (because it is not named and has not been conclusively identified)! It seems that even the most determined fundamentalist Christians struggle to uphold every single Bible verse as 'infallible' in the sense that they might define the term.
Faulkner (copied in but I suspect all AiG staff block my emails; they never respond) tries to ignore the obvious meaning of Matthew 4:8 by comparing it with Luke 4:5 (which mentions no mountain):
''But does this verse truly imply the visibility of the entire earth from the peak of this mountain?''
He reaches what I believe is an erroneous and unconvincing conclusion:
''As mentioned above, one might incorrectly infer from Matthew 4:8 that there actually is a mountain so high that the earth’s entire surface is visible from it, but by interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture, one can see that this is incorrect.'' It looks correct to me. Maybe Luke 4:5 is incorrect (or at least incomplete) in failing to mention the mountain. Luke 4:5 still says that Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world after being taken 'up'.
And then we come again to Ken Ham's eye-catching statement yesterday. ''Nothing in observational evidence will ever contradict the history in God’s Word because that history is true—from the very first verse.''
But to make Matthew 4:8 'true' in the way AiG insist Bible verses are all true his colleague has been forced to question whether the mountain mentioned in this verse really exists (because Earth is a sphere and you simply cannot view all the kingdoms of the world from anywhere very high up - even though, conceivably, you might be able to do so if Earth was a flat circular disc). We have observed - we have the photographic evidence - that Earth is a sphere (but you would not learn this reality from Matthew 4:8, taken literally).''
Remember - Answers in Genesis BLOCK my emails and REFUSE to answer (maybe they only answer people who are already convinced YECs) any of the questions I regularly send to them using this form:
https://answersingenesis.org/forms/inquiries/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests