A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

quote:
You participate in debating Muslims before. Has somebody pointed this to you before?
Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
There, Prophet Muhammad's name in a part of the Bible.
-----------------------------WS: I doubt you will possibly find a Muslim claim about the Bible I've not seen already. This one is very easy to disprove. There are two major problems with taking single words out of context like that. First, and most simply, there is no way of following the dialog of Song chapters 5&6 with the intent of inserting Muhammad (for Heb. "Machmad") in the place of "altogether lovely". The story makes no sense whatsoever with that application. Here's a fine presentation about that at Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting Read it and weep.While we all get a good hearty laugh at the uses of the alleged "name Muhammad" as found and used elsewhere 12 times in the Old Testament, let's look at this correctly, dividing the Word, in context.Song 5:8-6:3
I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love.(Note): A good enough starting place, we find here the end of the Shulamite woman's dream. After telling her dream to the court ladies the Shulamite charged them that if they should see her shepherd lover they should tell him she was lovesick.[9] What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O thou fairest among women? what is thy beloved more than another beloved, that thou dost so charge us?(Note): The court ladies answer back. Was her beloved better than any other, even though the ladies admitted the Shulamite woman was the most beautiful of the court?[10] My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.(Note): The Shulamite adds praise of her shepherd lover, describing a god-like man.[11] His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven. [12] His eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. [13] His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh. [14] His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. [15] His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. [16] His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."(Note): This fellow, the shepherd, was no ordinary man, but is known to be the Christ (played out figuratively by Solomon), and the Shulamite woman represents the Bride of Christ (played out as the one being chosen to be "queen of queens"). Muhammad made no claims, nor have any been made of him that match the attributes of that Shepherd. Those words were written about 1,000 BC, recognized as being of the Messiah, not some unrepentent sand pirate born 14 centuries later.[6:1] Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women? whither is thy beloved turned aside? that we may seek him with thee. [2] My beloved is gone down into his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies. [3] I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies."(Note): Her description of the Shepherd was so vivid and extraordinary that she stirred a great desire among the court ladies (called "daughters of Jerusalem") to see him for themselves. They asked where he had gone so that they might seek him also.Next claim:?

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MartinM:
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"
Sounds flat to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------"The Earth is not a circle, it is a globe. A coin is a circle and it is flat."I won't hold out hope Nos could possibly comprehend or offer any proper answer, but I'll offer an answer anyway for the sake of MartinM's confusion. Nos doesn't understand the definition of a circle, or its wondrous mechanics, and it appears MartinM compounds the error further. Let's get the coin fallacy out of the way first. A coin is a section of a cylinder. It is composed of two circles bounding an interior space (volume), with two outer surfaces, and one edge. A coin is NOT a circle, and is NOT flat, but is three dimensional (length, height, and width=volume), with a truly round coin having equal length and width.A circle does in fact define a sphere, whether intended or not, visible or not, whether the circle is a flat plane on a sheet of paper, or a hoop hanging in mid air. A sphere is mathematically implied. A perfect sphere would be represented by any circle segment encompassing its surface.Going on to the Scripture in question, let's quote it again, but this time in context:
(Notice while there in chapter 40 this prophecy concerning John the Baptist, in verse 3)Isaiah 40:21-22
Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?(Note): Here we have a lenghthy description of attributes of God. This verse leaves no excuse for lack of knowledge of God, being revealed from the beginning.[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:(Note): Notice the often left out part about the grasshoppers. The idea is that God sits so far above the round earth that men look like mere grasshoppers. This is a striking illustration of man's insignificance as God sees him from the heavens. Man appears as a busy, agitated, raging multitude spread over the earth like bands of locusts over the plains of the East.The Hebrew word "chuwg" was translated there as "circle"; "circuit" in Job 22:14; and "compass" in Psalm 8:27. This word revealed that the earth was round by any means of envisioning it until some men presented the idea of the flat, four-cornered plane being the shape of earth, and the round disk-shaped earth. But the Bible makes no such claims. Find an interesting discussion about that myth here: http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htmIt is true that some philosophers, scholars, and theologians contradicted the works of Aristotle and Pythagoras, but those were minority beliefs. None of it can be laid on the Bible. That the Stas wer siad there to have been flung out like a curtain under which God resided verifies they had at least the concept of spacial volume and not a flat plane universe. The major point the ancients apparently shared was not knowing why the sun/moon/stars travelled across the sky, whether it was from earth spinning or the heavens spinning, which would be understandible.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no difference in the oldest known copies of manuscripts, and no known original letters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Would you mind naming those oldest known copies?WS: Save me some sleep time and just visit here: BFBS MAT - New Site Redirectquote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which had been preserved a very long time, verify that what was already accepted as authentic copy was indeed authentic, not tampered with over the millennia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------As I understand it, there isn't a lot of overlap either so your conclusion that the copiers were faithful is questionable. At best, you can conclude that where the texts overlap the copiers can be shown to have been faithful.WS: You need to bone up on that. They are still unwrapping thousands of fragments, many overlapping, and all exactly matching pre-dead sea discovery sources. The studies will require a few more decades to go through all of those documents.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't necessary to read Hebrew to obtain the message of the Scriptures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------But it is necessary to read the original if you are going to quibble over turns of phrase and vocabulary, as you often do. Any translation is subject to the biases of the translator, as no two languages exist in a one to one relationship. Translation is not science.WS: I have found not one credible scholar, secular or religious, that agrees. Because the various TRANSLATIONS by many different groups in different times agree so well, it is a settled matter as to the literal word translations. It is the INTERPRETATIONS that bother you. There is no significant benefit in re-translating the original texts. It's already been done by competing scholars many times, and not enough difference exists to warrant another lifetime of work repeating those efforts.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To insist on that is the essence of gnosticism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I don't follow. You are using a definition of Gnosticism I have not encountered.WS: http://www.xrefer.com/results.jsp?shelf=&term=gnosticism&...You might have to paste that one in to eliminate gaps to get it to work. If it doesn't, go to http://www.xrefer.com/search.jsp
and type gnosticims in. I must get to sleep soon. Moving quickly along....quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A person concluding from the Bible the earth is flat will also probably have difficulty using an encyclopedia or cookbook.
There is no statement in the Bible the earth is flat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------I've noticed a few passages suggesting that the Earth is flat. There are numerous references to the Earth resting on pillars and/or being stable and unmoving. Heaven as well is described as resting on pillars.WS: Please don't make such general statements. Let's dissect the actual verses IN CONTEXT.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As close as a person can get is reference to cardinal directions, which are communicated in flat-plane terms even now since people still can't think in terms of curvature of the earth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Retrospectively this makes a lot of sense. That is, to modern ears it rings true. But considering that other cultures of the same region at that same time represented a flat Earth in much the same terms suggest that the Israelites as well believed in a flat Earth. You cannot cut them out of the context in which they lived and expect to analyze the religion properly.WS: You need to cite those claims about the neighbors believing in a flat earth. Where do you get that?quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many readers never get around to learning the rules of interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------The rules of interpretation? Would those be the same rules used to evaluate other texts of ancient mythology?WS: You will find that by not having some knowledge of apologetics and the principles of exegesis, and other skills, you will fail in trying to argue the Bible. Those things are not needed among readers of the Bible who accept the call to take it by faith. Since you apparently cannot do that, you MUST take a scholarly approach and use logical, reasonable methods of analyzing texts. Like the Muslim, you will only meet with proofs you are ignorant of the subject. I've witnessed many Muslims come to belief in the Christian way once they realized something terribly wrong was there in their approach, especially adopting Muslim apologetics and unable to support that approach. I predict some here will necesarily realize the same thing, deciding for Christ, else choose to remain in ignorance in spite of the proofs their borrowed claims are so faulty.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are easy to locate on the web, and most homiletics textbooks do a fine job of teaching how to derive proper sermons by proper interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------... a fine job of teaching how to interpret passages according to the biases of the textbook's author.wow.....WS: In fact, some such most popular textbook authors and college professors teaching those principles are agnostics and atheists working in religious seminaries, for about the past 60 years. Those principles work with all literary works. In spite of their skepticism, students survive to go on to preach the gospel armed with an impenetrable defense from wrestling with the unbelief associated with the courses. But, those fellows are really good instructors who teach well the principles they hope some will use to discredit the Judeo-Christian philosophy, somehow. Some students abandon their faith quickly at the feet of those professors, but most prevail.Some entirely Christian-authored textbooks are now available, but none as magnificent as the classics they replace. At least the unbelief and skepticism is disappearing from many seminaries, in exchange for a little literary genius.

quote:
--------------
sigh... this is the problem using translations as backup. I cannot see what you are talking about--------------WS: There is no possible alternative message in there. I took each Hebrew word of the text, checked each word in some lexicons, and found the translations consistent.quote:
---------------
http://www.answering-christianity.com/song5_16.htm
"Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]My brothers at Answering Christianity said that this is their preferred translation.
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Correct translation of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]WS: If that is logical deduction method, then so is "yea, he is WORDSWORDSMAN." It is ME! Oh, THANKYOU for that revelation....that shall be my preferred translation that cancels that of your brethren.That translation of theirs is pure nonsense, as rediculous as my parody above. You apparently didn't read the reference I gave. Whether it is authoritative or not, the observations prove you are right now mocking your prophet. YOU MOCK MUHAMMAD. If what you say is at all true, then you must also insert "Muhammad" into the other 12 places the Hebrew word is used, regardless the outcome. That makes Muhammad a false prophet, a fool.Andya Primanda's "Muhammad" of the Bible:"1 Kings 20:6: "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."
2 Chronicles 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels."Isaiah 64:11: "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste."Lamentations 1:10: "The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation."Lamentations 1:11: "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."Lamentations 2:4: "He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire."Ezekiel 24:16: "Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down."Ezekiel 24:21: "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword."Ezekiel 24:25: "Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters." Hosea 9:6: "For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles."Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb."Joel 3:5: "Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things."If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea.When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely related to the clause -- Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan."
Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting Thankyou, Andya, for assisting me in proving the disciples of Muhammad, your brethren that are responsible for that foolishness, follow a shadow in the sand. Western civilization is too sophisticated to fall for such mirages of the mind.quote:
---------------
And you offered you preferred translation, telling me that Jesus Christ was the one referred there. And you don't offer me the Hebrew. Again, you have original texts?
---------------WS: Here's a fitting explanation of this Muslim joke."Does Song of Songs mention Muhammad's name?
Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root ([1], [2])But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.In Arabic many words are formed from the same root, but they do not on that account denote Muhammad. An ignorant Muslim might just as well assert that Muhammad's name occurred in Surah 1, Al Fatihah, verse 1: Al hamdo lillahi Rabbi 'lalamin ("Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds"). In the same way a Hindu might assert that the name of Ram or some other of his deities was mentioned in the Qur'an, because in Sura 30, Ar-Rum, verse 1, we read " the Romans have been overcome," where Arabic dictionaries give "Rum" as if derived from the root "ram". This kind of argument is unworthy of men of learning and judgement.A newsgroup article in regard to that:Song of Songs 5:16 shyr hshyrym 5,16his mouth is sweets Hkw mmtqym
and all of him is delights wklw mHmdym
this is my love zh dwdy
and this is my darling wzh r`y
daughters of Jerusalem bnwt yrwshlmSong of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play. Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures.The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists...Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, lust after
Hmd z delight, loviness
Hmdh n desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt covetousness, lustfulnessIt is also interesting to note: Many Muslims are "outraged" that something like the Song of Songs by Solomon which is a love song and sometimes very open in its erotic language could be part of the Word of God, the Bible. But then, they completely "forget" this argument and try to find in the middle of this very same love poem expressing this woman's desire for her lover the name of Muhammad and are not the least embarrassed by this. Have a look at the whole context of Song of Songs 5-6. The argument goes: This should not be in the Bible, such erotic language is unworthy of the Word of God, but it is a prophecy of Muhammad nevertheless.A further problem is that even though Muslims need to find Muhammad mentioned because the Qur'an claims so, the Song of Songs is neither part of the Torah nor the Gospel, so that this verse wouldn't help at all to satisfy this demand of the Qur'an even if it were to speak about Muhammad.:WS: This shameless penchant of Muslims seeking legitimacy by perverting the Scriptures is telling, an alarm for all reasonable people that the religion Islam is a sham. There is no connection between the Bible and Islam. Ishmael and his mother went away led by an angel of God, carrying with them the knowledge of the God of Abraham. From history it is known the children of Ishmael continued with Jehovah until the perversions of the sand pirate Muhammad, who one day must have been victim of heat stroke. The fellow suddenly decided he didn't like the Torah and Christianity, thinking all that took a wrong turn, thinking himself a prophet with power to change all that to suit his existence. He began a large lie, a deception that removed many from the presence of God, into the doom of godless despair.

A significant disparity is evident in your judgment in that, Administrator. You merely mention Nos has "gone back" to his old ways, not even mentioning his initiating of personal insults, and continuing them, calling me "nuts". I responded by measuring his show of maturity as childish, which is accurate, yet he blathers on.Off topic, Andya slides to second base with:
"Strangely, I happen to adhere to a view that someone can be sent to hell if he/she accepts any substitute for God. That includes Jesus. He's not God to us Muslims."That, in all fairness, opened the door to well deserved insult of Islam's false prophet Muhammad. We now know Andya subscribes to a belief Jesus is not what He and His disciples claimed Him to be, making Him a false prophet they regard as a valid prophet, insulting the central figure of Christianity. Now everyone knows my opinion of a man they regard as their chief prophet, which is no prophet at all, but a perverter of history and Holy Scripture, spokesman for Satan, opposer of Jehovah God and His Son Jesus. Apologize for what? My contrasting of core beliefs? This is no idle speculation on my part. I have my beliefs based on the Bible, which itself identifies anyone coming with such false teachings to be OF the spirit of antichrist, the devil. The Bible easily identifies such a false prophet as Muhammad as a fool, a madman, a reprobate. You desire that I apologize for the message of the Bible? I apologize for insinuating the man might have had a medical excuse for his biblically described insanity. It isn't known whether he suffered stroke and lost mental acuity when writing the Quran. Pure speculation on my part, a common exercise here among several post contributors. I should have stuck to the obvious truth that Muhammad was demon possessed. That, too, can be verified in the Bible as an accurate explanation of anyone contradicting the Word of God like his followers do. Is that a little better?

""the ancient Hebrews, like all of their contemporaries, were flat earthers, and their flat earth cosmology is written between the lines in numerous passages of the Hebrew Bible.""WS: I saw that and noted it was entirely speculation without reference.A circle, a closed gometric figure defined such that all the points on the circle are at a constant distance from a center. This distance is called the radius of the circle.
"Spheres are the most basic three dimensional objects that you will encounter in Astronomy. A sphere is defined much like a circle, except it is in 3 dimensions. Therefore, it is defined as the set of all points in space that are equally distant from a center. As such, one of the characteristic paramters of a sphere is its radius."
http://dosxx.colorado.edu/~atlas/math/math4.htmlA sphere can be represented by infinite sets of identical circles defining the surface of a sphere, each circle having the same attributes of circumference and distance to the center of the sphere. Therefore, just one of those circles represents the sphere, it having no less attribute that the other parts of the sphere. The only difference is that many identical circles are associated with a sphere, but it is only necessary to consider one of them.The only relationship between a disk and a circle is that the base of a disk (the coin) is "circular". But the circle of the base can't possibly represent the disk, like a circle can represent a sphere, since the disk has a third dimension unrelated to circles- height.It is inescapable the curvature of the earth would be observed by mariners of ancient times, seeing ships rise from below the horizon. I've seen that myself. On an oceanic voyage (Navy) one sees many other ships in the lane rising from one horizon, passing, and dropping off into the other horizon, wherever one travels, demonstating that principle applies everywhere. I realize the bulge of the ocean magnifies that effect in shorter distances than the limitations of the eye on land, but that would be a constant in any age for any observer. There imply was no obvious discussion of a "flat earth" in biblical times, for that would have been a source of great concern with many references to the potential problem of falling off the edge. It just isn't there, not until fairly modern times. None of the great philosophers referred to the Hebrews or any other ancient group as believing the earth was flat. Some speculation of the earth being more of a squared off disk was present by the time Aristotle envisioned his correct deduction the earth was a sphere, but he didn't entertain that at all. Only a small minority could be assigned to that belief, mostly other philosophers.Some late Christians took up the secular beliefs of a flat earth, finding the obscure references Bible skeptics like to quote, but that still doesn't prove the Bible taught them that concept. Once they believed it they mistakenly relied on the Bible to support their view.Any claim the circles and corners of the earth are biblical teachings of a flat earth are simply false and unsupported. All teachings of such a concept comes from misuse of Scripture. Those few verses are hardly reasonable as sufficient to address such a topic as an earth being something other than what we know it to be. Much was said of the moon and stars, also important objects to men, but such little said of the nature of earth's shape? It should be an exercise of simple logic those people knew something of the earth's shape just from viewing the sky. If you can still view the moon and stars without interference of city lights, try to let the moon teach you the earth might be flat. It was there for them too, the ball in the sky, and so were the eclipses. Vain philosophers meddled with that simple lesson of nature.

Proverbs 18:2
A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.WS: I will reason with a fool until the fool abandons reason for folly. At that point it is useless to abandon teaching for argument.Muslims, know that your way is a false way. There is no credibility in Islam, Allah, Muhammad, or the Quran. That's why followers of that cult desire to find sanction in the Bible. It can't be found in the Bible because God knew you would arise with a false teaching that argues with His Holy Word to the damnation of millions of souls. The very fact that the teachings of Islam contradict the scriptures of the Bible should clue you to the fact the Bible wouldn't possibly fortell the heavenly SENDING or CALLING of a prophet such as Muhammad. He was not sent by God, but inhabited by Satan, the fallen angel desperate to destroy as many of the human family as possible. It is Satan who would usurp Jehovah God and deny His Son Jesus, denying the holy record of the Bible.
I have no quarrel with any man personally, but with the spirit of the devil upon and in them. When you touch the Bible with perversion, expect to be treated with the same intensity as Elijah answered the prophets of Baal. He ridiculed their professed god which was unable to aid them. Then he had those fellows killed. I will slay with the truth. The more you touch our Bible, the more Islam will bleed from the shame I heap upon it.
Your Muhammad remains shamed and ridiculed at your own doing by assigning one word in Hebrew as being his name. His name is thereby castigated by the Bible itself. Touch not the holy scriptures. They are life to its believers, death to its enemies.
Deut. 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

quote:
I think maybe you over-estimate the ancient mariners. The 'sea-faring' civilizations stayed within site of land. Now if you stay within sight of land and all of your buddies hug the coast as well, you aren't going to see many boats come over the horizon. The boats were low to the water, thereby obscuring the effect you mention. You might be talking about a damned obvious effect if you are watching a 250 foot four mast schooner come over the horizon, but if that boat is a 30 foot row boat? Not so obvious. And lets not forget about waves tossing all of the little boats about, further obscuring the observations.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There imply was no obvious discussion of a "flat earth" in biblical times
----------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch5.htmlWS: You contradict your own reference. They state this:
"However, we believe medieval discoverers did NOT fear sailing off the edge of the earth."Nor did pre-medieval mariners fear that. That is promoted in storybooks printed long after those days, spawned by belief in Greek mythology.Solomon was heavily involved with shippers, not row-boats. Shipping by large freighters was commonplace, and it was mariners that did in fact travel beyond the coast in those days, importing and exporting. The Mediteranean was a large enough body of water to teach the lessons nature has for men. There are only a few scattered references to a few philosophers who promoted ideas of a flat earth. That site just continues wild speculation on those few actual hints of even the Babylonians' beliefs. Speculative opinions are no proof of the beliefs of the authors of the Bible. It is distraction. You have not put a hairline scratch on the Bible, and won't.

"Thanks bro. Now I know what Christians are made of."WS: Brother? We have opposing fathers. Mine is the Lord God, who is One, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yours is not mine, nor ever will be, for I certify before all men I will never bow to "Allah" or heed Muhammad. To do so would be to commit treason against my God.Indeed it is wise for you to clearly identify and recognize a Christian coming to you in the power of God. You cannot resist and retain honor. I debate with Muslims in many places online and in real life, not one of which has ever prevailed. Most flee when excessively shamed according to Jam 4:7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."I am submitted to God, and I resist anyone coming in the name of Satan through any of his means, be it atheism, humanism, gnosticism, Islam or any other lie.There are many people who entered in believing such lies who have come to realize their gross error, and now are Christians going out to warn others. Most fiercely hang on to their faulty beliefs even when left with no foundation, and that is sad. But it doesn't hinder me from getting the deceived to face the lie. It must be a relentless effort, joined regularly by people armed with powerful insider information that can reach the heart of any Muslim suspecting something terribly wrong with Islam. We get together in a special group to share what we've learned, and there people are trained and encouraged to step out and boldly witness.What Christians are made of? They are born again creatures who seek to act like Jesus Christ, their sins forgiven and daily repenting, and knowing who they are in Christ. That is a threat to any Muslim who cannot know his god. Your god is too remote, away on a trip in the mind of Muslims, unable to assist you, leaving you with no more power than at the tip of a sword. I have the sword of the Spirit.

quote:
------------------------
You might find it helpful to note that Isaiah does not say that the earth is a circle. Instead, he states that there is a "circle of the earth." Meaning that the earth has a circle not that the earth is a circle.You might also find it of interest that the phrase reads "sitteth on the circle" rather than "sitteth on the earth which is a circle." One cannot sit on the edge of a truly two dimensional circle; thus, sitting on the circle itself implies a three dimensional object. It is not necessary to search for some definition of a circle which allows for all three dimensions.
-----------------------WS: Good points. I ran across a thought somewhere reading up on the subject, that the earth does cast a circular image against the moon, marking the lunar cycles. It took men a very long time to realize what caused that, though it was there in text all along. God knew, men caught up. Only part of the image is actually seen intercepted by the moon, the rest of the earth's outline casting somewhere else, maybe where God sits looking down.

Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, "nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical."Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story-Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
(Who invented the idea of a flat Earth? - ChristianAnswers.Net)Next, as to when large ocean-going ships are known to have been available, it is known the Sumerians invented large sail-driven ships that were also equipped with oars for times there was no wind. That goes back as far as 1500 BC. The Syrians used sailing craft of war, too. The picture offered of Solomon's boat was a pleasure craft similar to what the Pharoahs favored for their grand tours, not a boat of war. Start here:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/...ors/05sailors12.htmAt sea in the night one can see light of a lighthouse, then the light itself ON the horizon, slowly "rising" upon approach, similar to the rising of the moon. When the water is calm, like a sheet of glass, anything at all on the horizon is very discernable without a telescope. All ships appear to rise out of the horizon, growing taller as well as larger upon approach. At sea, upon approach of a snow-capped mountain range, all one sees on the horizon is the mound of snow "sitting" upon the sea. It looks like only a cloud. Drawing nearer the snow rises to reveal the ever rising mountain. It doesn't take a textbook to teach a person the earth surface is continually curved. I would suspect a person in antiquity would be laughed to scorn who would insist the earth was flat, in any culture, for it was known that no man had found any edge of the earth, nor was it looked for, a puzzle not present in ancient literature. There was no dispute until much later long AFTER the Old Testament books were written.It is just one of those things the average person wouldn't dispute if they had seen any of those effects wherever they went on earth. Aristotle made it official that the earth was a sphere.It is clear that the Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat, emphasizing the circle OF the earth, and history reveals there was no dispute about that in Bible days. The problem exists in the livs of a handfull of people, not with the majority of thinkers.

quote:
----------------------
Sword, the reason I start to quote your so-called holy texts was because Peter Borger asked me to. [He slips away somehow, maybe locked in another flame throwing session vs SLPx]. I did, and I learned some valuable lessons from it.
1. If your attitude is the usual attitude of Christians, then I'd sooner be an atheist then follow your ways. Do you expect people to convert by name-calling and such? You'd only get flames. Even nos482 can't stand you.
------------------------------WS: Before 9/11 I had several physical threats from Muslims around the world and even from US cities. Those threats came after having debated them sensibly. One they decided I had head enough of their truth, I must decide- believe or die as a double-damned infidel. After 9/11 I submittted all the information I had to the FBI, never hearing from them again.
But they didn't represent the average Muslim. Most don't have a clue as to the Quranic message, finding great alarm when I quoted from it. It really hasn't been dificult to disuade people from following Islam.Mine is not the usual, general attitude of most Christians who really don't have a belief about Muslims, ignorant of their error. They just go along their daily lives trying to concentrate on Christianity, ignoring other religions. I concentrate on evangelism, ignoring the pleas of liberal "Christian" protestant sects that are right now claiming Judaism and other religions are paths to God. They abandon the teachings of the Bible and Christianity itself. I recognize the love of God for all men, taking much time from otherwise pleasurable activities to preach the gospel and practice Bible apologetics. If I hated people I would be happier fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, working out at every opportunity, letting the world go to hell without a whisper from me.I find your direct assault on the core of Christianity, openly denying the claim of Jesus Christ as God indeed, to be akin to Jihad, a clear announcement of religious war. Few Muslims do that, knowing they can't support that statement. You can't support your statement, but opened yourself up to a very embarasing predicament. How will you rescue Muhammad now? In most discussions it has not been necessary to disparage Muhammad, coming to the real problems of Islam long before name calling might be resorted to. But right away you jumped to the last resort, requiring the correct extreme contrast in rebuttal. You brought that upon yourself. You departed from simply thinking there is some error in the Bible to challenging the central point of my faith. Most Christians would be left speechless, but not this one. There is no wet spagetti response appropriate to your published claim. Yuor own religion claims Jesus a prophet, then you say his claim is bogus. Jesus is therefore to you a false prophet. Islam esteems Him in part, therefore esteems false prophets if any are esteemed.quote:
----------------------------
2. [For myself] Never claim anything using Bible verses as reference. Not worth the trouble arguing and undefendable because the original texts are nonexistent. Only use empirical evidence for secular arguments and the Qur'an original text for religious arguments (if necessary).
--------------------------WS: You immunize yourself from any logical, methodical approach by requiring such source. Where is the original handwritten manuscript from the hand of Muhammad? Which disputd Quranic text ia the real, original one, and what proof is there of your answer?What the original manuscripts of the Bible contained is known because of the harmony of copies from many ages, confirmed by discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Those copies go back long before Quaranic copies existed, by far pasing the test of time.quote:
----------------------
Arguing with you has been a hard lesson to swallow, but I now understand what Christians really think. There goes my respect to you.
----------------------WS: You threw respect out the window from the outset. Look up the word respect, for your use of it is innaccurate. I like to set out "respecting" Islam at least by not attacking the Islamic honor of Muhammad publicly.I've had many interesting hours of discussion just comparing religions that all might judge which serves man and God more reasonably. We "agreed to disagree agreeably". That appears to be beyond reach here.Don't argue- just debate unattached to emotion.

quote:
---------------------------
You may be right, but that there was not dispute does not mean that people thought the Earth was spherical.
---------------------------WS: You haven't come up with a single proof from history or otherwise of the Hebrews knowing or not knowing the earth was spherical in shape. You won't be able to do that. All there is to be thrown around is argument. For instance, I can offer this from Can the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space? | HowStuffWorks
which is a very simplified example of how easy it should be to reason this out."QuestionCan the curvature of the Earth only be seen from outer space?AnswerIf you didn't know that the Earth is a sphere, there are three common observations you could use to convince yourself that it is.The first common observation is the shape of the moon. First, the face of the full moon is circular, and that would lead you to believe that it is a sphere rather than a disc. When the moon eclipses the sun, the shape of the shadow is always circular, which clinches a spherical shape for the moon. By extrapolation, you could assume that the Earth is a sphere also.Also notice that when the moon is being eclipsed by the Earth (a lunar eclipse), the part of the moon that is eclipsed is actually the shadow of the Earth. This shadow tells you that the Earth is a sphere just like the moon.A third way to see that the Earth is a sphere is to look at how objects in the distance "disappear" as you get farther away. For example, a 100-foot-tall ship that is 15 miles away is not visible. That's because it is blocked by the curvature of the Earth. As it approaches, it "rises." First the tip of the mast is visible, then more and more of the ship comes into view as the ship gets closer."Next, recall that Moses, writer of the first five books of the Bible, was raised in the court of Pharoah as a prince of Egypt. He was privy to the best they had to offer. What do you suppose they knew then? Check out 404error
Very interesting short history of geometry, the contents of which match up with every textbook I've been leafing through, and other websites including online encyclopedias.The Pythagorean theorum was known a thousand years before its time. Aristole also demonstrated the curvature of the earth, with no fanfare whatsoever about it not being flat. Most of the emphasis was on how large the earth was BASED on measurements of its curvature. Where is the earth shattering revelation the earth isn't flat if that was the belief before them? If that belief ended before them, then who is credited with that discovery? If men thought it was that way in ancient times, I would think much would have been made of that error a few hundred years BC. But there in no emphasis at all that I can find.This ongoing suspicion the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat is only a continuation of false assertions about Christians during the initial reactions to Darwinism. This sort of thinking is very typical of the continual desperation of atheists to find fault with the Bible. No matter how many times their ideas are refuted, they just keep coming back with more of the same, always amounting to nonsense. Unfounded accusations.

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I touched a sensitive religious nerve there. Vice versa. Your claims about the divinity of Jesus also touched mine. I now don't feel like arguing about these anymore. I believe that there is no god but Allah, and you believe that I will go to hell for that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: The notion your religion proves the Bible is errant is highly illogical, silly. The topic is about the Bible, whether claims of errancy are true, not what the Quran says. An opposing religion is no proof for or against another religion. You need to understand my Bible clearly states that your belief will result in eternal separation from God if you don't repent. Where is the error in that? Your prophet came along a few hundred years after that was established, claiming it is not so. That is evidence of error? Well, by the same token, I come now, almost two millennia later, saying that the Holy Spirit came revealing to me the older words of Christ are true, those of Muhammad are false. See there? Your religion now stands as false by the standards imposed against Christianity by Islam. My revelation is at least as good as his was, man for man. Prove the Holy Spirit did not visit me with the truth. Muhammad SAID an angel approached him. What proof in that? None. It COULD have been a demon, a fallen angel, a bad dream.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You believe that acceptance of Jesus as savior is crucial to everybody's salvation, while I believe that accepting other substitutes besides Allah is an unforgivable offense. All of them are the central part of our religious experience, and one should have argued fiercely if those beliefs are attacked. However, argue as we may, I doubt that we can get anything worth out of it. My source is my religious text and you with yours. Our arguments are all based on things only we believe and not others believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: So where in all that do you find support for error in the Bible, or support for denying the words of the prophet Jesus? The Bible says what it says. You can't support claims of error by comparing Bible statements to Quranic statements. It is a matter of belief, not error/inerrancy. The only errors are in how men deal with what is written. You are mixing too many principles in this debate. You actually have no purpose here if your platform is claimed authority of the Quran pitted against the Bible.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed that Jesus is a false prophet. The Islamic creed only considered him to be a prophet, no more than that. I have supplied some Qur'anic verses to back my claim. Of course you don't believe them. Then I have no other way of making you see my point except to wait for the afterlife. Only then will our disagreements can be settled. It's just a matter of who's going to heaven or hell, after all. Outsiders (atheists especially) would see it as ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: Islam doesn't directly claim Jesus was a false prophet, but Islam has re-created another Jesus, rewriting history, presenting a character that never existed. The Muslims' Prophet Jesus isn't the same Jesus of the Bible. That is no proof the Bible is in error concerning Jesus. The historian Josephus proves the Muslim account of history to be wrong anyway. By changing the account of the biblical Jesus, Muslims do in fact make a false prophet of that Jesus, in error. When you repeat those lies about the biblical Jesus, you become part of the guilt of defiling the Christ.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the original texts, I could claim that Muslims took great care to preserve the original texts of the Qur'an since Prophet Muhammad's death by means of Qur'an memorizers and written copies, but you perhaps already know that. There is only one version of the original text. Ask any Muslim you're currently debating right now; even the splinter groups Shiah and Ahmadiyah uses the same Arabic text
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: I am very familiar with the process of preserving the original text. The Hebrews did the same thing, but over a much longer period, with many individual books of many authors, all completely harmonious with each other. The writings of Muhammad are not checked by other authors, so his lone vision is without test by other men with verification his vision was from God. All must accept his vision or perish, regardless what God might have said to some other man then or men of another generation. That God only spoke to one man in all history is hardly palatable, especially that he would wait so long to speak to any. Taking the more reasonable approach that any living God would communicate with men before Muhammad came along, one should then compare all later revelations with the already present written record. If there is significant disparity especially concerning accepted historical facts, then there is obvious error, usually in subsequent works. Biased perspectives enter in to distort what really happened, such as the well known blatant attempt of modern critics of the Jewish holocaust in Germany, claiming it is fiction. Legitimate historians and respected journalists and authors have independently verified the datails of the horrible event, yet skeptics hold on to their deliberate error.In any case, not one original manusacript of the Quran exists, save very old copies of it. The same can be said of the Torah. The original text and language OF the original manuscripts have been preserved and are available to all. Every word has been certified as authentic, and the definitions of every word, as well as interpretations of those words, have been properly rendered in modern translations in other languages. English scholars are capable now of sitting with Hebrew scholars today, reading and studying the Torah together, never quarreling over a word or literal interpretation. The only significant differences are centered around overall interpretations of concepts such as the Messiah as concerning Christ Jesus, and other obvious differences between Judaism and Christianity.
That is further complicated within the various Jewish sects that disagree with each other over the message to be inferred of the Torah. But the fact the original Hebrew words of the Torah text remain identical to the original text is undeniable within any reason.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike you, I am not quite fundamentalistic in my views. I might not be as zealous as some of my brothers whose dayjob is debating Christians; therefore I should restrain myself to scientific debates. Thats my main motive to stay in EvC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------WS: Then you must be a "moderate" believer, anathema to true Islamic believers. You believe in part? Why believe in part at all? Are some parts unacceptable? As for your being here, the basis of your involvement has brought problems for your faith, has it not? To continue would be certain to heap more insult on Islamic claims. I am not interested in destroying your faith until I see you headed toward the true faith, not wishing to make an atheist of you. I am concerned that you said you would prefer to be an atheist before accepting Christ should Islam be discarded. If you already believe there is a God, how could you choose atheism? The problem is choosing the wrong god, both in name and nature.You failed to support any claim of error in the Bible while bringing unretractible shame upon Muhammad by supposedly finding his name prophesied in the Bible. I'd suggest refraining from contending with Christians with knowledge of the Bible. But I would also suggest you listen to and consider evidences you are on the wrong track. By all means, stick to the scientific forums until prepared to contend without net loss.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 10-06-2002]