There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

1) the bible was written by SEVERAL people.
2) you CAN measure the width of a sphere, so don't mix that up
3) Jesus spoke in parables to explain deeper meanings so that people could relate to them, as to understand them and be able to apply them, so don't debunk the "he might be using the model of" scheme. and just as the way you put it, there's no evidence he's NOT using a model.
4) funny thing is, new testament DOESN'T. one thing to call question from the passage you quoted is the number of kingdom's there were. you don't know, so really he COULD be standing up on a mountain and looking at three different kingdoms, which happen to be the only ones in existence (which is plausible, given the faith of any evolutionist who would look at the big bang theory), and there's no evidence of that being true OR false, so don't write that off as false.
5) point still stands, whether or not they reference a model of a flat earth or even IMPLY a flat earth, it's not relevant to what is being said as a whole. even if you came to the conclusion (which i don't doubt you have) that EVERYBODY BACK THEN knew that the earth was flat and believed it, it has no affect on the overall premise of the bible or salvation as a whole, and therefore does not affect the validity of the book itself. so this little *bash the bible piece by piece* thread doesn't actually mean anything, ironically. which is why this is my last post on it

I didn't say you can't measure it. I said we don't normally refer to a sphere by "width" - the word "width" usually signals that we are talking about a flat surface. As I said, any "deeper meanings" are irrelevant to the actual words and imagery used. But we do know - there were kingdoms in the Americas and in Asia that could never be seen from the same mountain, no matter how high. (Have you read the thread? I think all of this has been covered.) What does that have to do with anything? Point still stands, we're not talking about what is being said as a whole. We're only talking about the flat-earth issue. Please read more carefully. I have already said that I am claiming nothing about what "everybody back then" knew or believed. I am saying that Daniel (and Matthew) evidently believed the earth was flat. I agree. Of course it doesn't. So, why are you so insistent that they "knew" something when there is no indication that they did? There is nothing in this thread about bashing the Bible. I'm saying that you should take the Bible for what it is, not try to twist it into what you wish it was. I'm saying "have some respect for the Bible."

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

*sigh* i don't know why i'm doing this...
this whole thread "signals" that *haha* people were so dumb back then because they thought the earth was flat, and we're so much smarter than they are because we use science to butter our bread. so i don't know how you're implying respect for the bible, honestly.
and the best way to know how the bible says something, really, and when to use judgment to figure out the difference of literal text and figurative/metaphoric, is to really just sit down and study the thing. too much on this forum i see people who try to argue its content, taking bits and pieces of beautiful commandments and stories and construing them horribly to create their "this is why *ha* we're so much better than them because we don't believe it" crap.
so if i made the insinuation (to you) that you're aimlessly out to slam the book, i'm really sorry, i'm slightly frustrated that this forum "the Bible: Accuracy and Innerancy" seems more like "we'll try to create meaningless flaws out of nothing by destroying context and not even using the bible to argue it." to me.

No, it has nothing to do with anybody being "dumb". There's no shame in not knowing something. Even if some people back then did know that the earth is round, they didn't have the communication or eduacation systems to make the knowledge universal.It's just a matter of accepting what they probably did know and did not know from what they said. That's how you show respect for people, past or present - by accepting them as they are. You need to lose that attitude if you're going to survive around here. Everybody who disagrees with you is not necessarily the spawn of Satan.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

no i never said that. but it seems to go un-aired that when discussing biblical statements, it's more important to use the bible itself rather than petty "logic" that so happens to shift almost every 10 years. and what makes me think that a lot of the people around here are out to simply bash the bible is the thread about the first original sin, right below this one on the listing. if you look at my little debate of the last page, you'll notice that right after i pointed scripture to solidify scripture i was personally attacked (to little degree, but still) and i was thrown incoherent scripture pulled radically out of context.

You can't use the Bible itself to test its accuracy.The Bible has to stand up to logic and to outside sources just like any other book. Once again, it's disrespectful to the Bible to set up special rules to protect it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK. I am going to ask you a couple of questions in order to get some answers from you that will allow me to arrive at my own conclusions.Keep in mind that I am not trying to necessarily attempt to argue with you or to prove or disprove anything. I am simply curious as to the source of your reasoning.Here are my questions:1) Who wrote the Bible? Humans or God? How do you conclude your answer?2) As Christians, what is it that we are called by God to do with our knowledge? What is it that we are supposed to show others?3) Do Christians know things that scientists (non-christian ones) do not know?

If this is true, what do you suggest that we do to attempt to understand these meanings?

Sorry but that is classic jabberwocky from the Christian Cult (actually more a Culture) of Ignorance.Too many Christians really seem to panic when folk, even other Christians, point out the inaccuracies found in the Bible. The Bible simply reflects the knowledge of the peoples and milieu when parts were written. The authors of the Bible, at least most of those who wrote the Old Testament, did think the earth was flat. They did think that the sky was a solid dome with holes that could be opened or closed to allow the vast sea of water that was above the dome to pour out.Those things do not mean that they were dumb, simply ignorant. Actually, from their knowledge base, the theories of water below, flat earth, sky dome and then waters above even made sense and could be supported by evidence. The Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum is a place to examine the accuracy and reliability of things in the Bible as FACT. To do that, things in the Bible must be tested against reality, against outside sources. In looking at Accuracy and Inerrancy the Bible is not tested against itself, the Bible cannot provide support for itself. One clue is that this forum is among the Science forums, and over here, the scientific method is used when examining the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Sorry but that is classic jabberwocky from the Christian Cult (actually more a Culture) of Ignorance.

---

- and personally that didn't do anything but make YOURSELF look ignorant.one thing to keep in mind, especially for something like this thread:
even if the overwhelming majority of people back then believed the earth was flat, it does not make the bible any less accurate - you're simply proving that PEOPLE's logic and knowledge back then weren't as good as it is now. and if you think ignorant is what they were... read Job 41, the account of the Leviathan - it describes a creature much similar to a dinosaur sized dragon type animal.The premise of the bible is salvation, God's relationship with man (and vice-versa), and God's Commandments (how they were in Old Testament, vs how he established New Law in New Testament). so even if people in the bible believed a flat earth concept, it has nothing to do with the bible.
obviously you (say that you) "can't test science using the bible". then why would you attempt to test the bible with science? given the fact that information regarding science and its many branches changes, and the information in the bible has long held still for nearly 2000 years? the term "reality" is loose, and one's perception of "reality" often changes, it's never a constant thing, so using that to test the bible is ineffective, given that you'd have millions of different answers from millions of different people.
and you're incorrect - the bible provides support for itself many times over, just not what you're looking for.the scientific method is used to judge that which is SCIENTIFIC in perception. the bible is not about science and has nothing to do with science. it may have little snippets of things that we could say fall into a scientific category, but the bible itself is not. "don't judge a book by its sound"Edited by Mikael Fivel, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote

In Message 204 I attempted to point out to you that Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy is a Science Forum. It is not one of the Theological Forums. I'm sorry but that is called a circular argument. The Bible cannot provide support for itself scientifically, theologically or logically. I'm not sure you even know what ignorant means. You seem to think that it is some derogatory comment. It's not. It is a simple statement of fact. The authors of the Bible knew far less about the world than people living to day just as we are more ignorant than those who will come after us.And I have read Job and Leviathan is NOT a description of a dinosaur. Another nonsense statement where you contradict yourself. If their knowledge was not as good back then (and good is a really silly term) then they were more ignorant than we are today, doesn't it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Just a quick question. Early science taught what? And then what happened? And what happened after that? And then?The mysteries of the universe were/are subject to increasing knowledge

quote:

---

"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book
until the time of the end, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."(Daniel 12:4)

---

Is this what happened? Are we endowed with the curiosity that makes things happen? OT people were observant, but what would they have done with the skills we have today, the knowledge?* The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars”which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)
* The Bible also says that each star is unique.1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.[1] (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
* The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
* The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtmlNice try, though.

dorfman, you bring up excellent points. early science wasn't about gaining wisdom and testing other people's THEOLOGICAL beliefs. it was about curiosity and understanding the workings of the world.
and jar, if it's not stating a dinosaur LIKE creature as i said, then what is it? those dimensions stated are that of a dinosaur to me, even the scientists who support your argument.
and really, the best people that argue the bible and make an impact are historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists. why? because they're willing to dig INTO the bible and where it's from, who wrote it, going to the sites, physically digging up remains, reading contextual historic documents and one key thing... they READ the bible! they don't stand back, take snippets of scripture and scrutinize them based on what WE think is logic, or OUR amount of "scientific" knowledge, and it really seems more like you're just poking fun at scripture really. there are geologic structures that the egyptians, romans, and Israelites built in biblical timepoints that SCIENTISTS can't even explain.Edited by Mikael Fivel, : No reason given.

Depends upon where you are. Please double that number at least for skies in the desert southwest of the US away from city light. and I can't vouch for other people's eyes but to me Betelgeuse is clearly red, Rigel is clearly white, and Altair is clearly yellow as has been noted since ancient times. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

Stop that right now. That attitude will get you nowhere.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC