|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Circle of the Earth" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
So,ignoring what God, who was the One way up there on the circle of the earth looking down on men as grasshoppers, may have meant is backward in your book. OK. Perhaps we should ask the grasshoppers, then, to please you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Without form, and void in the created state could mean a lot of things. It could mean that water and land, perhaps, were not separated, or almost what we might call a little mucky?? Then, He divided the land from the waters, and we got, what we call Pangaea.
Or, I think some simply interpret that it had a different form.. " It was not in the form it now is, otherwise it must have a form, as all matter has; it was a fluid matter, the watery parts were not separated from the earthy ones; it was not put into the form of a terraqueous globe it is now," Genesis 1 - Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org Basically, we can't look for present environments and try to say that the lack of form at creation was like that! That is very narrow minded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
uhm that is not what I said - perhaps I was not clear.
It is backward to assume the God inspired these words and thoughts without proper evidence. You want to ponder what God said by assuming these are the thoughts of God. If you are going to try to make this sound like God was zipping around on some flying saucer at 1000 feet don't reply and lets just leave it as is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:No, wheels that fly. Assuming the bible is taken into account, and we don't just go by your silly imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Right, to believe in a God, as the bible describes Him, including the flying throne, is foolish in your eyes. OK. Not like you have the slightest evidence for your incredulity. Of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shtop Junior Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
Right, to believe in a God, as the bible describes Him, including the flying throne, is foolish in your eyes. OK. Not like you have the slightest evidence for your incredulity. Of course.
Well you see, we don't really need evidence NOT to believe in something, rather we need evidence IN ORDER to believe in something. I could say there are things like the flying spaghetti monster, or a teapot orbiting the earth, or faeries at the bottom of my garden, and you would not believe me, even though you have not the slightest evidence for your incredulity. That is a sensible approach. So yes, to believe in a God, as the bible describes Him, including the flying throne, is foolish in my eyes. (Especially since he is meant to be omnipotent, so why would he need a flying throne? He could just fly without. And since he is meant to be omnipresent, why would he need to fly anywhere anyway?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Right, to believe in a God, as the bible describes Him, including the flying throne, is foolish in your eyes. OK. Not like you have the slightest evidence for your incredulity. Of course. er, no, we're talking about the bible. you're talking about flying saucers, and grossly mishandling the text in order to support some supposed correlation between the two. it's not my fault that hearing your own points makes them sound like gibberish. they're gibberish. it's like you find the single most crackpot interpretation of the text, and run with it. hey, maybe it's referring to isaiah's cd-rom collection? and, in any case, i happen to be a closet UFO fanatic. enough to know that "flying saucer" is a misnomer -- they're rarely circular. and the person who accidentally coined the term wasn't describing circular UFOs, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The first words of Genesis are more limited in scope than I had previously imagined. er, well first of all, is a dualism, which idiomatically means "everything." i'm not sure how you can say that's limited in scope. genesis 2 is the cultural, localized mythology, but genesis 1 is trying (literarily) to usurp babylonian (and other) mythologies, and portray the hebrew god as creator of everything. it's a somewhat globalized story, without the concept of a globe. i think the aretz here is probably meant to apply to land in general -- all land, anywhere. the description we are given is certainly one of god setting up the hebrew cosmology (dome of the heavens, etc). so it seems to me that this is about the whole of their cosmos.
The popular interpretation of Genesis 1:2 (very like that of Philo) requires acceptance of an oxymoronic statement. The Hebrew expression tohu-bohu becomes complete nonsense when given the English: "without form and void." That rendering baffles the mind of the reader and leads to equally mind-numbing alternatives, such as the NLT’s: “formless mass.” Philo devotes a number of pages to explaining those two little words. He goes on and on trying to rationalize how there can be such a thing as an Unsubstantial Substance. ‘ doesn't seem to me to be an oxymoron. tohu can mean "emptiness" or "desolation" (as in a desert wasteland) but i think in this case it more accurately reflects the idea of nonexistance: "nothing." bohu reflects the same idea -- a void. the best idiomatic translation would be "and the earth did not exist." or more literally "and the earth was unformed and nonexistant." it's not precisely ex-nihilo because the water is there, but the idea of the verse seems to be that land -- any land -- does not exist. the standard rendering does create some problems, yes, but imho they're an artifact of translation.
To the point: "tohu-bohu" is descriptive of a desert wasteland. a desert wasteland... underwater? that makes very little sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
That's what God does, He zips around in a flying saucer, according to the bible. Since the circle of the earth phrase is also from the bible, and explanations are needed, it is only natural to look to the same document for reasons.
The kinds of evidence we have for God and the bible are not natural science evidences, if that is what you are hinting at. Of course. That is because, by and large, they are knowledge of things supernatural. We can not ride on your personal, unfounded incredulity alone on issues of the ancient documents of scripture. The door swings both ways. It is backward to assume the God did NOT inspire these words and thoughts without proper evidence. You want to ponder what God said by assuming these are the Not thoughts of God. You need evidence for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
hey, maybe it's referring to isaiah's cd-rom collection? Oh, god! I remember that one! (Although it seems to have started here.) And don't forget how Ezekiel describes DNA. (Which was continued here.) In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Eze 1:15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. 16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. That is the bible. The term flying saucer is the modern one, of course the wheels of God are not 'saucers'. But, if one was to ride on the thing, one would see the people as little bugs in size. One also could maintain an orbit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
The whirlwind from heaven was not DNA. That simply does not fit the bill.
Over in chap three, it seems that Zeke got a ride up up and away. He was lifted in the 'spirit' up. Again, the wheels of God are right there. 12 Then the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing, saying, Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place. 13 I heard also the noise of the wings of the living creatures that touched one another, and the noise of the wheels over against them, and a noise of a great rushing. 14 So the spirit lifted me up, and took me away, Then, in chap 10, we see it was a throne. 1 Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne. Even in Daniel it refers to this.Dan 7:9 .. and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. The mobile sapphire throne of God. I call it the "Scepter"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
simple writes: The term flying saucer is the modern one, of course the wheels of God are not 'saucers'. But, if one was to ride on the thing, one would see the people as little bugs in size. One also could maintain an orbit. An orbit is just an uncontrolled trajectory. A rock can orbit. What kind of puny god would need a flying contraption to do it? If that's what "the circle of the earth" means, it's a pretty demeaning picture of God. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: er, well first of all, is a dualism, which idiomatically means "everything." I am inclined to agree in terms of what the author had in mind but have not yet found a translator willing to publish the text in that way. Are you aware of one who has? Even though I understand that the author may have intended to describe all of existence, it remains clear to me that his conception of "everything" was extremely limited. I stand by my earlier assertion that the biblical word 'earth,' never suggests a planetary concept; and now add, for the purpose of clarification, that it also never suggests a global concept as we understand the literal meaning of that word. Even biblical expressions such as "whole earth," "all the earth," and "all the world," may be demonstrated, in context, to depict relatively small areas of the globe.
‘ doesn't seem to me to be an oxymoron. I did not say that it is. My point, and what I said, is that many interpretations require that we accept the oxymoronic notion of something which is nothing. The following commentary which I found, on what appears to be a Jewish website, does little to modify my opinion. (italic emphasis mine)
quote: This is simply a modernization of Philo's cockamamie something/nothing fantasy.
the best idiomatic translation would be "and the earth did not exist." I understand the temptation to view it in that way but in context it seems laughable. i.e. "When God created the earth, the earth did not exist, and was covered with water." I do no mean to make fun of the text but rather of the interpretation. "As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there ..." a desert wasteland... underwater? that makes very little sense. Indeed. There are two things here which challenge the modern interpreter. Assuming, as many do, that the first two verses are an introductory summation of the cosmogony, then there is no serious obstacle to the interpretation which I have offered. {Note that the text does not actually say that "earth" is under the water at this point.} In addition to other advantages offered by said interpretation is its consistency with subsequent descriptions of Earth as "dry land" and a place where there is "no rain." Lending some strength to my argument regarding interpretation of tohu-bohu is the Septuagint reading of Genesis 1:2 which says: earth was unsightly and unfurnished. Sir Brenton's translation. The other challenge I see here is to explain why we imagine a water covered earth beneath the surface of which is that which God will call "Earth," defined in terms of its dryness; and then He defines "Sea" as the water in which Earth has appeared. This presents a fundamental challenge to creationist interpreters. The Bible, even the New Testament, is clear regarding the cosmological concept being presented here. Clearly, it is not one with which modern students are intimately familiar. It is not even remotely conceivable as a "global" view, in terms of solid geometry. I am thinking of how Saint Peter describes Earth as being partly in and partly out of the water. As to how a desert can exist under water, consider the annual flood of the Euphrates as it was experienced prior to the development and widespread deployment of river levees. The Mesopotamian desert was under water for some time every year. Does that make it something other than desert? Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
"Need"?
Hey, why not have this Rolls Royce of flying machines, that can travel the expanse of this universe is style?? Other universes as well, perhaps. (doesn't mean He could not tork around if He felt like it, without the throne. While visiting earth, He might hover, or set up an orbit. Either way the verse is wonderfully bang on. How anyone would see that as demeaning, I have no idea at all. Oh, and any orbit He assumed would not be uncontrolled. Edited by simple, : No reason given. Edited by simple, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024