|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
How so? break it down and say it using different ways
"The world is firmly established;" firmly established how about saying, it's set, or it's firmly created. "it can not be moved" another way of saying it is: You nore I canmove it, or change that which has been firmly established. yet none of it ever said it was not moving on it's ownwhich is what was being implied here. "The world is firmly established; it can not be moved"in no way means that it is not moving. show me where it means that it is not moving? or has anything to do with being flat. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
zcoder writes: All can agree that is does not say it is not moving nore that it is moving, but that it is set on it's foundation and can not be moved. "Set on its foundation and can not be moved" does mean it is not moving.
meaning that man can not stop it, that it is set on it's foundation by god, and only he can move it from it's foundation. It says "can not be moved", not "can not be stopped". You're turning the Bible upside down.
the foundation being it's spot in our system, and it's rotation in that system around the sun. It says nothing of the kind. You're just making that up. It's sad that you feel you have to butcher the Bible to give it value. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
I did not take it out of context, you did
by not fully reading the whole bible. Palms 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." the above verse is the currect Hebrew translation.and although King James translated it, you can see that his choice of words is close to it, but lacks true meaning to some extent. But this in no way makes King James a bad guy. If you would learn more about the true Hebrew translationyou would find that the so called errors are not really errors at all. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
zcoder writes: I did not take it out of context, you did by not fully reading the whole bible. I'm not comparing translations at all. I'm only quoting what you said about the translation. You said that "can not be moved" means "can not be stopped":
quote: Nothing in any translation changes "can not be moved" to "can not be stopped". And anything set on a foundation does not move. Then you made up some nonsense about rotatation and moving around the sun:
quote: There is nothing in any translation about rotation or "our system" or moving around the sun. The Bible was written with the point of view that the earth was fixed in space - and more to the point of the topic, it was flat. They didn't know any better. So what? You're bending over backwards trying to shoehorn some modern science into the Bible.It doesn't work. Take the Bible for what it is. Don't mangle it. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"The world is firmly established; it can not be moved" in no way means that it is not moving. show me where it means that it is not moving? or has anything to do with being flat. That sounds a lot like it means "The world is firmly established; it can not be moved" to me. I can't imagine where you get anything about "it's moving" out of that passage. There is only "The world is firmly established; it can not be moved" there. Church leaders, back before astronomy finally made it impossible to do so without their heads exploding, wrote things like this, from Robert Cardinal Bellarmine:
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. Protestant forefathers like Luther and Calvin held similar views of a moving Earth and a non-Earth-centered universe. The "plain reading" of the Bible certainly calls for us to be the Immovable Center of Things - it's just that fact overwhelmed scripture a couple or three centuries ago in this matter, so some of you apologists like to hold to the fiction that "the Bible said this all along." The Bible actually taught an immobile and probably disc-shaped Earth all along. Internet History Sourcebooks Edited by Coragyps, : include link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
The moving around the sun was my translation of
what foundation was being talked about, and sence we today understand more then they did back then I used that to explain the foundation that was being talked about. and the Hebrew Translation does mean that it can't bestoped or moved, it can not be changed. Unless you want to say it can be if we was hit by a biggerobject someday. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
and the Hebrew Translation does mean that it can't be stoped or moved, it can not be changed I'm no Hebrew scholar either, but I'm something of an astronomer. I'm sure you probably haven't considered, zcoder, the fact that Earth's orbit is continually changing its shape. Wikipedia says: "For example, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit today is 0.0167. Through time, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit slowly changes from nearly 0 to almost 0.05 as a result of gravitational attractions between the planets." So what does "it can not be changed" mean in the light of that? Does "change" have a meaning along the lines of "stay the same" that the rest of us don't know about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
zcoder writes: ...sence we today understand more then they did back then I used that to explain the foundation that was being talked about. But you can't do that. You can't use today's understanding to retroactively claim that the Bible authors understood the same thing. You have to look at what the bible says to try to understand what the authors meant. You can't start by assuming what they meant and then go back and rearrange the words to suit yourself.
and the Hebrew Translation does mean that it can't be stoped or moved, it can not be changed. I don't believe it. You'll have to give us more than just your word on that. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
My proof was the hebrew Translation
Palms 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (you just have to research this to see.) "should not be removed for ever" people back then could onlyunderstand, what ever they could understand about this statment. but the meaning they could get was that god made the earth andlaid in on it's foundation and that it should not be removed. which I am sure they know that it can't be moved from what everthey can invision of it's foundation. the same would go for saying "your faith should be built on afirm foundation" which does not mean you should learn your faith ontop of a good foundation in some building. you know what the word foundation means when used in that example. But you are of modern times and this phrase would be more easierfor you to understand. But you take it like a child when it works for you.Yet those before you understood what foundation meant even though they did not have the details you enjoy today. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
That post makes no sense to me at all. Please try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
zcoder writes: My proof was the hebrew Translation [...] (you just have to research this to see.) No I don't. If you have a point, you have to make it. If you claim that the Hebrew backs you up, then you have to show that.
but the meaning they could get was that god made the earth and laid in on it's foundation and that it should not be removed. There's a big difference between "moved" and "removed". A house built on a foundation does not move. That's the imagery that the Bible authors used. Some houses are removed from their foundations, but the earth can not be. That does not suggest in any way that the house moves on its foundation or that the earth moves. Using the word "remove" instead of "move" just weakens your case. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
again you assume, moving or not it is set, the bible does not
explain to man the mysterys of the universe. So they back then did not know details of it's movment ect, but you do, and sence this phrase does not say that which you know, you say it is talking about it being still, none moving. You are playing with words, while the meaning gets lost foryour own benefit. You know what foundation means when used in different contextsyet your playing this game. Play all you want. Zcoder....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
zcoder writes: So they back then did not know details of it's movment ect.... The details of its movement are irrelevant. The Bible says it doesn't move.
You know what foundation means when used in different contexts.... In every context I know, a "foundation" means something intended to prevent movement. That's clearly what the Bible authors meant.
... yet your playing this game. I'm just reading what the Bible plainly says. You're the one who's playing games, claiming that "can't be removed" means "moving" and making up fairy tales about rotation. If the Hebrew really does back up your case, just show us. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
You are playing with words, while the meaning gets lost for your own benefit. No, Zcoder, you are the one playing with words. "Shall not be moved" means "shall not be moved" in English, and my bet is that the Hebrew isn't far from that same meaning. "Foundation" is frequently taken to mean a solid, non-moving base for a structure. The good Cardinal was quite firm about what the Bible meant here. And quite accurate about what it meant. It's just that what it meant is utterly out of sync with reality. That's fine for some old book, but seems less fine for The Revealed Truth Which Changeth Never.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zcoder Member (Idle past 6238 days) Posts: 66 Joined: |
If I said that god said "and the heavens came forth like a sroll" you
would say that, that does not mean the same thing as we know about the expansion of space, just becouse the words universe or expansion was not used. foundation can also mean as I have said.examples: "the foundation of EMF is firm, and can be proven with formulas" Yet you can't tell me exactly what Electro Motive Force really is just how to created it and it's behaver. yet you know what the meaning is. "We want our childs morals to be built on a firm foundation"and here again you know the meaning. yet you do not know the exact morals which are being talked about. "The building should last long, being build on a firm foundation."this one is really differnt then the other two. as this one is the true meaning of the word foundation. Meaning is what you lack, if you can't see it. or refuse too. anyways are creatinist considered lower races of humans?becouse they believe? as I have only seen posts that attack not debate. debate should be done with repect for the other person and not inject personal attacts. Zcoder....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024