Flat Earthers

[Legs]

First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?

Young earth creationists are cretins, they cannot be convinced of anything other than their blind belief because "the bible is right".

Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.

And I took their article which says the opposite, such is the contradictory nature of scripture and their arguements.

As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English.

Those are the sources of biblical passages the use on their website which support the flat earth theory.
Gen-Genesis. Ps-Psalms. Isa-Issaiah. Mal-Malachi

Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch.

Try the word I used, or use the english translation from the english bible.

After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/th...-not-the-point

See how easy it is.

Links can help, you know.

Links would only be required if Phillipus Flavius wished to push the point.

The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits

So either creationists must accept the earth is flat or they must agree the bible is not an infallible accurate rendition...which would mean they can't be creationists anymore as they reject the basis of their own arguement.

[Gilrandir]

The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits

Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".

[Legs]

Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".

Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.

Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.

Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.

[Legs]

Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.

Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.

Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.

Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.

In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.

[Sigurd]

I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.

Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.

In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.

We have long distinguished between creationism and Creationism, the difference being the capital C. Both groups believe in a creator. The difference is in the timespan and how the creation was done. I believe the last pope, a creationist, believed evolution was one of the methods of creation employed by his Lord.
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.