Came across this with some of Lewis's views on evolution from some previously unpublished correspondence, which suggests that Lewis became somewhat less accepting of evolution in later years:

September 13, 1951: I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth's unpublished "The Lie of Evolution"] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant. I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Ferngren.html

There are a lot of stories in the Bible that are duplicated elsewhere. The Epic of Gilgamesh is frequently used as 'evidence' of the origins of the story of Noah's Flood. Pandora's Box is another one of these. Many of these ideas originate from the concept that Genesis 1-11 was written a conglomeration of stories during the Babylon Captivity set to counter-act against the Babylonian stories. This has pretty big implications.

The whole Bible is one gigantic epic story. It has a beginning, a Villain, a people to rescue, a self-sacrificing hero, and a spectacular showdown before the end. If Genesis 1-11 was a counter to Babylonian myths, then the actual Bible would really start in Genesis 12 with Abraham. And more complicated than that are the multitude of references within the Old Testament to creation and the Flood, who treat is a literal and historical.

If you are doing a light reading and not trying to dig deep into Scripture, I can see it not being a big issue. I can see someone coming to Christ without the story of Genesis even being brought up. But if you are trying to dig deep, Old Earth theory, specifically theistic evolution, runs into major conflicts with the Bible. Without going into deep theology, one thing that concerns me about those that interpret Genesis figuratively is where does it end? There is no contextual break anywhere between Genesis 1 and Genesis 12 that would indicate a change in genre of literature. If you interpret Creation and the Flood, even the Tower of Babel as figurative, where do you draw the line for Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and ultimately Jesus?

The thing is, it's not our call on how we interpret Scripture. That would make us the arbiters of what Scripture really has to say. As a published author, I already have had readers greatly misinterpret what I wrote. What my parents and I believe they think is happening in my book is nowhere close to what I was trying to say through the story of my novel. My book needs to be interpreted based on my beliefs, my understandings, and my way of thinking. The Bible needs to be interpreted based on the same thing with its authors. "The beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is not applicable here. And if the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, no amount of science or knowledge we have today should change what was meant in these passages. I saw a video a while back of a Biblical teacher at a Biblical university stating that Paul had no business bringing Adam into the New Testament (Romans 5). His reason for making this statement: his belief in theistic evolution. That statement alone makes a claim he knows what should be in Scripture better than the one man who wrote 2/3 of the NT. I call this teacher a liar and heretic. And yes, I have to be that rough when I see this sort of thing. That is still nice compared to what Jesus called the Pharisees.

Every generation of believers has one thorn that is a constant deceiver and draw away from the truth. In the 1st generation of the church, it was the issue of 'was Jesus the Messiah'. Today its evolution. This may not affect some people's belief in Christ and the Bible, but I have seen several people who used to claim to be Christians walk away from it due to evolutionary teaching. If it can lead people away from God, it's dangerous and not of God.

Asking the Bible questions about science is like looking for ethics from theories on evolution. Its asking something of something that it is not intended to answer. I look to the Bible for my ethics and to current science for my ideas about nature.

For some it is a religion but for many scientists the Old Earth view is a Paradigm. This means that it people will operate as if this is the reality because it is at the time the best way to interpret the evidence put forth. But science when it is treated as actually science and not as a religion, is given to paradigm shifts. This happens when enough evidence mounts to discredit the old paradigm. Many people put forth new ideas at this time and one of them is adopted as a new paradigm. Like it or not, in the Scientific community at the moment an old earth paradigm is reigning. Scientists operating under this model, may not necessarily believe its true but can more easily use it.

However, it is impossible to take the creation story literally. There are two separate narratives contradicting each other on several points slapped right against each other.

Example whether there were plants before man was created.
Chapter 1
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day... 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground....”

Compared with Chapter 2

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Then it goes on to say that the Garden of Eden had already been with trees already there.

So first the plants are around before the people. Then they are not. Then they are again.

The idea that the Earth is six thousand years old is actually not from scripture alone. The idea was put forth by Augustine in some early church writings, which sound a lot like someone arrogantly deciding how to interpret scripture.

At my church college, this is what happened and what convinced me not to take the Bible literally. A Biology professor was asked by our Theology faculty to speak at a collquium for Theology seniors (these are young people about to go out into the world to be pastors and church leaders). He was supposed to speak about evidence in science that has been interpreted to discredit a universal flood. He did so. Then he talked about ways to interpret the evidence so as not to discredit a universal flood. Then he asked for any questions. I'll call him Dr. Z. Everyone who knows Dr. Z knows that he is a very strong defender of the Young Earth/ Intelligent design/ micro-evolution only. However a student in the class video-taped his class without his permission and posted it online, editing out vital parts of his presentation so as to make it appear that he was teaching a local flood doctrine, when he was in fact doing the opposite. This went all over the internet as "proof" that students were being brain washed to believe in evolution. I was completely disgusted and turned off to militant creationists ever since.

I just can't side with people who take those kind of methods. At least in that situation the ones acting like the pharisees were not the "evolutionists" That and also when I found out the 6,000 years was set by Augustine based on his interpretations and that there are 3 separate accounts of the creation story in the Bible all of which emphasize different things.

I believe that there are some people on both sides who will say disrespectful things. But the ones I have observed in my own circle who act more like pharisees are the ones calling the other side heretics. I feel like its a modern version of Galileo and flat earth versus round earth all over again.

At my church college, this is what happened and what convinced me not to take the Bible literally. A Biology professor was asked by our Theology faculty to speak at a collquium for Theology seniors (these are young people about to go out into the world to be pastors and church leaders). He was supposed to speak about evidence in science that has been interpreted to discredit a universal flood. He did so. Then he talked about ways to interpret the evidence so as not to discredit a universal flood. Then he asked for any questions. I'll call him Dr. Z. Everyone who knows Dr. Z knows that he is a very strong defender of the Young Earth/ Intelligent design/ micro-evolution only. However a student in the class video-taped his class without his permission and posted it online, editing out vital parts of his presentation so as to make it appear that he was teaching a local flood doctrine, when he was in fact doing the opposite. This went all over the internet as "proof" that students were being brain washed to believe in evolution. I was completely disgusted and turned off to militant creationists ever since.

Obviously whoever did this was not doing the right thing, even if he thought he was. I hate it when people use false propaganda like that even if it is to turn people to God- How can you teach someone about God by using un-Godly means? It never works.

I like your idea about God making "adult rocks" it is entirely possible.

The comparative timelines of Genisis 1 and 2 have always confused me, but the basic point remains intact... and they are clearly similar enough that they are telling the same story. I wouldn't be beyond thinking a translational error could be behind that, but the point remained intact... the best part about the Bible is no matter how many times it's been translated the important messages have remained the same.

I also believe adaptation ("micro-evolution"- as you all are calling it) is clearly occurring. The moth example is a well known demonstration of this as is pesticide resistance, and selective breeding achieves essentially the same result. I always believed it's kind of like God's insurance policy for the various species on the planet, he put genes in the population that might be a hindrance at the moment, but a life saver in the future.

But I still believe in creation, not speciation, though I'm not so sure it occurred 6,000 years ago. I also wonder if the timeline used in Genesis is different than our own. Perhaps their year is not the same length as our year... (hence how people became hundreds of years old- though Dad attributes this to the moon's position in ancient times... I'm torn between different timeline or that people just simply had longer lifespans that were gradually reduced as the population grew...) but perhaps it was

Conina, Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation. One is more of an overview, the second more detailed but neither are overly concerned with the order of creation (just like the Hewbrewaic historians who shared it through the ages and then Moses wrote down).
Granted some sections of the Bible aren't to be taken literally but they're quite noticeable in the way they're laid out - songs, poems, proverbs, prophecies, apocalyptic metaphor, these all have their place. But the historical sections are written as history and have no qualms that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it.

I'm sorry to hear of the hypocrisy that some creationists have shown, that's not right and godly. I'm not trying to make an excuse, but the other side also practice great hypocrisy. Both are guilty and you can't really be neutral because true neutrality doesn't exist. Still, I can see why you don't think highly or respectly of the creationist mindset after that experience.

Conina, Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation. One is more of an overview, the second more detailed but neither are overly concerned with the order of creation (just like the Hewbrewaic historians who shared it through the ages and then Moses wrote down).

But if it literally says that plants were there, and then literally says they were not in the next part, isn't that still technically a contradiction?

~Riella

Okay, I'm fine with natural selection in evolution. However, as far as I see it:

1. "Creation science" is not science.
2. Evolution-based origin theories are not science.

Science should involve concepts that can be tested in reasonably controlled environments, such that the concepts can be disproved and are accepted through repeatedly eluding disproval. The controls instated should define the limits where those concepts can be reasonably expected to occur, and outside those limits, a certain amount of caution involving outside factors should be applied, usually by testing the concept with the outside factors accounted for.

In short, science should be testable, and should not be expected to apply where it was not tested and outside factors are not taken into account.

Extending evolutionary theory into the past, where it was not tested, is extrapolation, which is a grave sin in the world of data evaluation. There are too many outside factors we really do not know enough about to say with any level of confidence what happened back then. At best, it is something more like archaeology, where at best we can make guesses.

Even with that guess, though, keep in mind: natural selection can only mix up genes already present. New genetic material has to be introduced through mutation--and that means every single unique genetic element that exists or has ever existed must come through mutation. When you consider all the mutations that have to happen, how complex those mutations actually have to be, and that in the end they still have to be "selected for", and really, if you're talking about accepting stuff on blind faith, accepting this kind of evolutionary theory takes much more blind faith than "God created everything in six days, end of story."

And again, the same caveats apply to "creation science". It's all extrapolation-based, and at best guesses. And for me, I don't want to rely on guesses to validate my beliefs; faith in an all-powerful God whose power I can experience is plenty enough to do that.

Now, all that aside...

...but I have seen several people who used to claim to be Christians walk away from it due to evolutionary teaching.

You know, we don't always see the whole picture, and I personally wonder how many of those people actually walked away because of evolutionary teaching, and how many had already walked away in their hearts and latched onto evolutionary teaching as a convenient "excuse" for their walking away.

Or, asking it another way, if God were to somehow reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that He made the world and He did it as it was written in His word, would everyone automatically turn to Him, or would some still be too attached to the world to follow Him even though their minds may be convinced?

I just can't side with people who take those kind of methods. At least in that situation the ones acting like the pharisees were not the "evolutionists"

There's a problem here with your way of going about this. Because of the sinful actions of certain people, you don't want to "take their side", since, as far as you know, no one on the other side has done anything quite that sinful.

The first problem is, you don't know that the "evolutionists" haven't acted in a similarly sinful way. You only know what you've personally run across. And really, if you look at what FfJ mentioned about the speaker who said that Paul was wrong to mention Adam because of theistic evolution, that's pretty darn bad too.

But really, you have to keep in mind that people are sinful, and that for every good principle we are to believe, there will be people who do horrible, sinful things to spread those beliefs. I mean, if you're so concerned about what people have done, I don't know why you're a Christian, because the spread of Christianity and its beliefs are in no small part due to some people who, in the name of those beliefs, have killed and tortured entire civilizations. If we preoccupy ourselves with the sinful actions of those people, we get in the way of Truth.

Focus on Truth, not on what people have done with the Truth. Or, rather, you are not responsible for what other people do with Truth; you are responsible for what you do with it.

Spot on Stardf. What a lot of people don't realize about 'Creation Scientists' is that many of them don't actually use science to try to prove the Bible. That doesn't work. If you hold the Bible to be the ultimate truth, the Bible must be the test for science, not science for the Bible. However, what we can do with science must also line up with the Bible. And this is what the creation scientists have discovered. We can use science to demonstrate that a world wide Flood has occured. But beyond that for Genesis 1-5, we can just speculate using the clues given by the Bible.

I also see your point about people using evolutionary teachings as their 'excuse' for walking away. I do believe that if people are saved, they are always saved, no matter how far they walk away. Some people however, appear to be saved, but are actually not. But this was the tool the enemy used to decieve them. My point is that we as Christians are using questionable material being taught as fact in our churches like this, we are assisting in giving people these 'reasons' to turn.

As far as two creation stories, I have heard those comments before. Not just with plants, but also humans. Did God create animals first then humans, or humans then animals as it appears in Genesis 1 and 2 respectively? Have you considered this? Genesis 1 is the grand, global/universal creation. Genesis 2 is the Garden of Eden creation. Chapter 2 talks about trees and shrubs not being there due to it wasn't being watered. It later says God made trees and shrubs grow, right after he made man. This could happen on Day 6 easily. It also says after God made Adam he brought every animal to him to be named. But we tend to misinterpret Day 7 as God stopped creating. God has always been creating as that is part of his nature. On Day 7 he rested. Then for Genesis 2, he zoomed in and created the Garden of Eden itself. If that didn't make sense, it's because its 5:00am and my brain does seem a little jumbled right now.

For example, I think one reason that rocks appear so old is that they were either there before creation "week" or else God created rocks in their adult form (like it seems Adam and Eve were), possibly complete with shells and fossils and other things that are found in fully formed rocks.

I used to think like this. I believed in what is now referred to as "Gap Theory", and it holds that there was a civilization or at least life before God created humankind on the first "week". The problem is there is no coherent Biblical support for the idea and proponents had to scrounge around looking for any verse they could find to support it. I believed in a highly modified version of Gap Theory in which the Earth was floating around in space for many millions of years before God entered the picture and plopped humans down on it. But you have to really fidget around with the Bible in order to come to that conclusion.

As far as God making things so that they appeared old (and yet weren't, not really), this is common to the "God created light on the way" theory that's fallen out of wide usage. It doesn't jive with Scripture, and because God would be making a falsehood by leaving false clues around, it would mean that God lied. That's not possible, ergo it cannot be true. I subscribe to White Hole Cosmology. Check it out...it explains in great detail how God could create the Universe and Earth and how the Universe could be billions of years old while only a week would pass here on Earth. The theory is supported by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and fits almost seamlessly with Scripture. I don't know if it is how God did it, but I feel in my heart it must be close to it.

If you don't take the Bible literally you run into problems. And by "literally" I mean if one doesn't take the whole Bible as truth. If I discard Genesis because I don't like what it says, or because I consider what it's telling me about scientific principles, or if it's just downright impossible, and I decide to discard it, how can I take the rest of Scripture seriously? Christ's resurrection is probably the most "impossible" thing that ever was...how do I believe in that if I can't believe God made the Earth in 6 days? And how dare God try and get in the way of superior human Science in this day and age! The nerve! Well, I am perfectly fine with having Faith that Christ was resurrected after 3 days, but that God created the Earth in 6? That's simply asking too much! Harumph!

See?

So then one can take scissors to whatever part of the Bible they want, and yes a Christian is totally able to make this kind of mistake. The World is quite convincing and can mislead. But the world is currently based on Sin. Do I believe in something based on Sin, which is itself a series of lies? Or do I believe in about the only thing one can and which has never told a mis-truth? I'm no philospher (that's TBG's arena), but if a dumbkopf like me can poke Logic holes in theistic evolution's arguments, then anyone can.

At my church college, this is what happened and what convinced me not to take the Bible literally. A Biology professor was asked by our Theology faculty to speak at a collquium for Theology seniors (these are young people about to go out into the world to be pastors and church leaders). He was supposed to speak about evidence in science that has been interpreted to discredit a universal flood. He did so. Then he talked about ways to interpret the evidence so as not to discredit a universal flood. Then he asked for any questions. I'll call him Dr. Z. Everyone who knows Dr. Z knows that he is a very strong defender of the Young Earth/ Intelligent design/ micro-evolution only. However a student in the class video-taped his class without his permission and posted it online, editing out vital parts of his presentation so as to make it appear that he was teaching a local flood doctrine, when he was in fact doing the opposite. This went all over the internet as "proof" that students were being brain washed to believe in evolution. I was completely disgusted and turned off to militant creationists ever since.

So because of one instance of this, you're going to tune out everything one of them says again? People on every side of EVERYTHING are going to be deceitful, because people are wicked. I guarantee you someone has done the complete opposite as well. If you aren't going to believe something until everyone who supports it is perfect, you will be very un-opinionated. You have to believe the truth because you have found it for yourself, not because someone you think is perfect, has.

I'm not really explaining myself very well. If God wanted to create the world in six days I believe that He could do it. I have a question though "Before the earth was revolving on its axis, what did a day mean?"

Conina, Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation. One is more of an overview, the second more detailed but neither are overly concerned with the order of creation (just like the Hewbrewaic historians who shared it through the ages and then Moses wrote down).
Granted some sections of the Bible aren't to be taken literally but they're quite noticeable in the way they're laid out - songs, poems, proverbs, prophecies, apocalyptic metaphor, these all have their place. But the historical sections are written as history and have no qualms that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it.

Warrior, you seem very knowledgeable about literature and historical context. Not everyone is and I've talked with people who do take those other parts literally, especially apocalyptic sections. I go to church with some people who do this and I love them and worship with them anyway even if I don't agree 100% with their philosophy.

I subscribe to White Hole Cosmology. Check it out...it explains in great detail how God could create the Universe and Earth and how the Universe could be billions of years old while only a week would pass here on Earth. The theory is supported by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and fits almost seamlessly with Scripture. I don't know if it is how God did it, but I feel in my heart it must be close to it.

That looks interesting. I will check it out. Thanks.

So because of one instance of this, you're going to tune out everything one of them says again? People on every side of EVERYTHING are going to be deceitful, because people are wicked.

Not tune out. I will try to listen to anything that anyone has to say. But I refuse to join in the cry and call someone a heretic just because their interpretation of data is different than mine. I consider what happened at my school to be the start of a witch hunt and could very easily blow out of proportion and continue. Several professors have already been fired for "heresy" at colleges connected with my church and from what I've read it seems like all of Christendom is up in arms over this issue. And while yes, I can see how views like the one of FencerforJesus' teacher are overzealous. I think christians need to be very careful how they react to it in order to prevent a witch hunt. I want to worship with others who love God no matter where they are at on how literally they take scripture.

As far as two creation stories, I have heard those comments before. Not just with plants, but also humans. Did God create animals first then humans, or humans then animals as it appears in Genesis 1 and 2 respectively? Have you considered this? Genesis 1 is the grand, global/universal creation. Genesis 2 is the Garden of Eden creation. Chapter 2 talks about trees and shrubs not being there due to it wasn't being watered. It later says God made trees and shrubs grow, right after he made man. This could happen on Day 6 easily. It also says after God made Adam he brought every animal to him to be named. But we tend to misinterpret Day 7 as God stopped creating. God has always been creating as that is part of his nature. On Day 7 he rested. Then for Genesis 2, he zoomed in and created the Garden of Eden itself. If that didn't make sense, it's because its 5:00am and my brain does seem a little jumbled right now.

I just think the timeline seems tricky. But God can move forward and back in time if He wanted to. Or time may have flowed differently before the Fall. Or your explanation could also work. I also like Warrior's explanation and may subscribe to that one after I've looked into it more.

I was nit-picking just to show that everyone is selective about what they read in the Bible. And perhaps it is arrogance but its also part of our weakness as humans that we read the Bible in terms of how we understand the world. For example people used to use the Bible to support a flat earth paradigm. I think that it is important to be aware of ways the Bible has been read in the past and keep an open mind about one's world view.

I think your professor who wished that Paul hadn't brought in the OT is being overzealous about the evolutionary paradigm. What I was trying to say is that someone calls themselves theistic evolutionist might not be that way. They might just subscribe to micro-evolution. Which, says nothing either way about origins. Since as humans we lack the ability to call a world into being in six days and we don't live for millions of years; anything about origins is not testable so not really science. I also think that one can recognize that Old Earth paradigm is the dominant paradigm and still be a Christian. Following history most scientific paradigms have cracks in them and my guess is that the Old Earth paradigm will also be abandoned someday if the world lasts that long. I've already pointed out some cracks that I see and others have pointed out more. Whereas the Bible has lasted for a very long time and maintained its relevance. So its a Truth in a very different and longer lasting way than any scientific paradigm ever is.

Now I will get to why I call myself a Christian. I don't really need scientific evidence or historical evidence that any of the Bible stories really happened to see and understand that we live on the fallen planet. Evidence of that is all around me. As Elanor said people on all sides of a debate are capable of using deceptive methods. I can see a fallen planet in the irrational ways people abuse their own bodies, in horrific stories about genocides. I can see it in the fact that our Earth is capable of feeding everyone on it and yet people go to bed hungry. I can look in my own heart and find deceit and greed and sometimes I feel connected to God but at times I don't and then I feel an awful hole in my heart.

The story in Genesis and other narratives clarify some things. It makes it clear that both Adam and Eve had a choice and although they may have been influenced by the snake, they made their choice themselves. This is very relevant very much to us now, that in many situations we have choices and a lot more often than we think we do. I think there is a lot to be gotten out of these stories.

Every once in a while I see acts of grace that floor me. People in my church give sacrificially to help kids go to college. A man paralyzed from the waste down volunteers his time to keep our church and school grounds beautiful out of the goodness of his own heart.

I should clarify, I became a subscriber to the old earth paradigm very briefly in reaction to the events I described. I reached the same conclusions several of you pointed out that everyone sins and so I can't throw out all beliefs based on the actions. Currently, I am not going back to clinging to the six-thousand year age paradigm as I've looked into it a little and find it somewhat shaky. But I think there is equally as shaky of ground for a paradigm claiming that the earth is millions of years old. I reached the same conclusions several of you pointed out that everyone sins and so I can't throw out all beliefs based on the actions. The earth is what we can observe and its hard to prove anything about how things came to be from what is observed. My current belief (very fluid) is that the age of the earth is not important to my worldview and can not be proven anyway. Since even if things appear a certain age, there might be another explanation for it. Meth users can age themselves very quickly and sin might have a similar aging effect on the world.

The way in which I am not siding with them is that I refuse to call anyone a heretic (one of my least favorite words in the English language btw). I think everyone is selective about what they read in the Bible. No matter what they think their own world view and past scholars influences them greatly. I think most of the Bible is about how we are called to treat people, and that is well. I try to use as my model how Jesus treated those in the Bible who interpreted scripture differently. I think He called the pharisees out because of how they treated people.

God isn't in our Time stream, otherwise He'd be a part of Creation. He's involved in our lives and in the goings on everywhere but he is the Supreme Creator of all things, and as such, He must be outside Time. It's very confusing for our human minds to comprehend but I believe this is how something like our free will and God's supremacy go hand-in-hand (don't cancel each other out) with how we live our lives now and later in the New Heaven and Earth.

The strange thing is that while people in the past used the Bible to support a flat-earth theory, the Bible itself hints at a rounded, spherical Earth. I'm sorry, I can't remember where (one mentioning was in Isaiah) but I recently read about it. Fascinating stuff. Maybe Fencer would be able to remember where these references are found.

The strange thing is that while people in the past used the Bible to support a flat-earth theory, the Bible itself hints at a rounded, spherical Earth. I'm sorry, I can't remember where (one mentioning was in Isaiah) but I recently read about it. Fascinating stuff. Maybe Fencer would be able to remember where these references are found.

How did they use it to support a flat earth?

~Riella

Actually, I'm not sure exactly how they used the Bible to support the flat earth theory. The belief is clearly from pagan mythologies, not the Bible. Sorry I can't be of more help.

To us now these passages don't really seem convincing. But these passages were used in the past to support a flat earth theory (which ironically as Warrior4Jesus mentioned were rooted in pagan philosophers.) Hindsight is 20/20

2 Kings 20:11
11 Then the prophet Isaiah called on the LORD, and the LORD made the shadow go back the ten steps it had gone down on the stairway of Ahaz. (NIV)

Isaiah 38:8
8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down. (NIV)

Then there is also the story of Joshua's long day. I need to look up where that was from.

I should probably edit what I said to be people thought they were using the bible to defend the flat earth theory.

EDIT

Here is the verse about the sun standing still:

Joshua 10:

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,