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

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.

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

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.

a mythical critter used as a plot device, clever. you know, God said it existed... hence his example of stating "LOOK at the Leviathan"... not "let's just say there's this large creature called a Leviathan" -and personally, if God said, i'm gonna believe it.
and don't laugh at me about reading the bible, it's not a HOLIER THAN THOU ART competition... i know hundreds of people who READ the bible everyday, but the fact is there's a difference between reading and being able to quote, and actually understanding Who wrote it and why, what the intent was, whether its figurative, literal or poetic, what it means to salvation, what can be done with it... all sorts of things. i was making clear too many people nowadays, ESPECIALLY on forums like this DON"T really READ and understand what the bible is saying -and if you're going to argue anything about it, READ IT FIRST! chances are the snippets you pull out, having NOTHING to do with what you're trying to MAKE it say.
and jar, don't play cute with me, you know what i mean when i say that there are structures built by ancient civilizations we (as investigative scientists) can't even understand (how or why they were built). as stated before, the Old testament is PRE-Aristotle in the first place, it doesn't make them ignorant to anything if NO ONE BACK THEN had any idea likewise of a flat earth concept, it was irrelevant to ANYTHING going on back then.
that link that dorfman posted is really quite useful for this type of discussion if you want to use implications of logic and "reasoning". the author describes the verse:
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.and notes the word circle (and depending on its context) translates from the hebrew word Chuwg to mean circuit or compass, indicating a spherical object.

the word SPHERE didn't exist back then. Mathematicians made it up POST old testament. back the then word circle was used for MANY different figures... that had ANY amount of circularity to them. like say a hollow ring (we'd call it a hoop) that is placed on your head (like what we'd call a circlet) they'd simply call a CIRCLE. why? because the hebrew and greek languages don't make MORE THAN ONE word for more than one meaning like us americans have. HUMPTY DUMPTY? how about LINGUISTICALLY CHALLENGED. and your example of humpty dumpty doesn't imply.
Christian cult of ignorance? and you're calling ME ignorant? speaking from the standpoint of a BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN, i know what the writers were saying and how they were said, and what they meant from it. the problem with your scientists of today is THEY are humpty dumpty. they've twisted more fact out of context than ANY body of people since the first century, and this began with the power struggle of Galileo and the CATHOLIC church. NOT CHRISTIAN. the best people to understand this are HISTORIANS, they look at what REALLY HAPPENED from surrounding cultures and what they wrote from a day to day basis.
as far as dinosaurs being dead for 65 million years or however long you said, guess what, your dating methods have been long incorrect and always changes, that is to say, you'll never get the same year result 3 times (and thats been tested). next year (and i'll put money on this) they'll come up with a NEW dating system. and they'll reveal that it was 65 million years... they'll push it back and forth.
"if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, ITS A DUCK!" so read job 41 over again and tell me what it looks like!
if your definition of ignorant means that which you stated, then guess what bud, WE'RE ALL IGNORANT. you're ignorant to biblical arguments, i'm ignorant to scientific arguments, she's ignorant to ford's new cars coming out in 2009, he's ignorant to dell's new computer - that analogy striking you as ridiculous yet?
"You are pulling another Humpty Dumpty trying to make words mean what YOU want them to mean."
am i? then read them to me and explain what they are "holier than thou art" Jar.
"So far it has been an almost universal truth that those who identify themselves as Biblical Christians are totally clueless about what the Bible actually says and means." PROVE IT. use accounts of "biblical christians" who read their bible and take it out of what you think is context or just plain have no idea what they're talking about IN REGARDS TO THE BIBLE. tell me what they said, what you THINK it means, why they're wrong. i want to see this. because i can tell you this, biblical christians don't strive to be "Mr. i know the universe and everything about it", they care in two basic principles NOT RELATING TO SCIENCE. however, scientists only strive for knowledge and what they think is wisdom - and from all of the professors i've talked to and confrences i've been at, including those that support creation science and Intelligent Design, they put their ego first. just like you. so i hope you don't mind i'll just start calling you guys "scientists wannabe knowitalls" since nobody seems to mind your slue of "christian cult of ignorance"

oh dorfman, you really should have pulled the whole of that scripture out... so here goes
2Timothy 3:
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth”men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.//*the TRUTH that he's speaking about, isn't truth that's used for science, or logic, it's truth of God's word//10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings”what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE YOU WISE FOR SALVATION through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

To understand the Bible, we need to be able to point to those places where it is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and then move on. To try to make such things true is to raise the Bible to an object of worship and to move further away from the search for GOD.-where the BIBLE is wrong? or the people IN it were? the people IN science WILL be wrong at one time or another, just like the Bible's writers, does that make THE BIBLE or SCIENCE as a whole, WRONG? what you're implying, and insinuating is that (clever analogy coming up) the tires on my car aren't suited for the weather, therefore my car is defective or useless. and no, you get this idea that people make the bible an object of worship, it has never been, but the Man who it's written after, IS that which is to be worshipped. and studying science does NOT bring you closer to God, studying his word, keeping his commandments, being a steward of His word WILL. once again, this is pointed MANY MANY times in scripture.the thing that teases me most is that you say "what makes you think i don't study it or haven't studied it"... how about pointing out some scripture for the topic! telling us you have doesn't prove anything. crack it open, let's go, i wanna see some scripture!Edited by Mikael Fivel, : No reason given.

guess who's language came first... greek or hebrew? greek was more precise, yes. but the primary languages of the bible are hebrew and aramaic. because the dominant religion that the people in the old testament modelled the ten commandments after, was JUDAISM, and they spoke in hebrew. so translate old testament with hebrew, translate new testament with greek. why? because the people in the new testament spoke greek. that is why when you pick up a torah (which are the first four books of old testament), it's written in solid hebrew. and the hebrew word chuwg translated indicates a spherical object.

ONCE AGAIN...the writers IN the bible may be incorrect, just as scientists are... but that does not make the guiding principles taught as a WHOLE incorrect. it was science professors and evolutionists that spout this the most to me throughout college. if i flaw what i'm saying, it does not mean that what i'm saying is wrong, it means I AM. i've simply flawed it. and no the bible isn't a map of anything. it's an account of a master plan carried out by God from the beginning of man to the crucifixion of Jesus (who made the plan complete). whatever the people wrote ABOUT the plan, or their accounts of the plan in motion, does not INVALIDATE the plan as a whole. read GOD's word, not man's. he only accounted for it. the teachings of Jesus (aka GOD) are whole and complete. you can't test the teaching "but i say to you Love your neighbor as yourself" with science. that is the guiding principle. whether or not i take it out of context, does NOT make IT, THE TEACHING incorrect, i simply am.

"One other thing. The Bible is and was written by man. There is NOT even one accepted Canon so there is not even one Bible.
Man wrote the Bible.
GOD's word is the universe we live in. That GOD wrote, not man."
yes, the bible was written by man, but it was inspired by God. i have an older study on this i'll have to dig up, regarding the translation of the original word for inspired, which happened to mean "breathed out" in, from what i remember, was either aramaic or greek. and no, the universe is not God's word, nowhere in the bible does it say that.but to you, providing evidences from people in the bible who thought the earth was flat may be a key evidence for ignorance, as you may say, is important. the weird thing to notice is that NOT all of the people in the bible believed in God, or Jesus. the original statement of "ends of the earth" was made NOT by a Godly man, but a king named Nebuchadnezzar, it just so happens that one of God's favored people had interactions with this man and interpreted his dreams. as david restated his dream, he did not use the term "ends of the earth" he used "visible to the whole world" which could have meant to it's people in SIGHT or in mind, such as the difference between emotional geography and physical geography (that you know WHERE something is based on an event, but you can't physically point it out on a map). the people in the bible who you are quoting to have said anything about a flat earth, were people living NOT OF God, but of the world. so yes, people in the bible believed the earth was flat, but the key is, that it wasn't people of God. they were worldly kings and rulers just like today. the only difference is that kings and rulers of today NOW know that its not flat. there is no evidence of GOD saying the earth was flat, nor is there evidence of the flat earth concept being of any importance to God's followers.

"The fact is that when it comes to describing the world we live in, the Bible is wrong."the Bible is not wrong... and we don't know what they meant back then when they said circle, by scientific standards. and as much as you think they were ignorant, they really weren't...Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.//they knew the earth hung in spaceJob 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.//scientists only figured that one (the whole 'wind has weight') out about 300 years ago...Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.//describing the recurculation of water...they knew LOTS of things pertaining to science that took scientists hundreds of years to figure out, instead of just reading the book! they weren't ignorant!how about hydrothermal vents?
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

thats what the scripture said. i don't get your point. wow... you're such a nice guy. by the way, you didn't explain anything... you were simply slamming down my posts. get smart next time, genius. i can get mean too :-)
you didn't even attempt to look that stuff up did you?///once again. water cycle.Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?don't cuss at me, bud, it doesn't make you look good. nor does it help prove what little point you had in that last post.

yeah, so why would you test it with science? makes about as much sense as testing my pizza with logic. lol uh huh, and i'm not disagreeing with you on them thinking the earth was flat, i was saying that they weren't as ignorant as you thought. which is why i stated those scriptures... that came from NKJV, which only READS easier than KJV... heck if you wanna say something original texts, why don't you just pull out the lot of them in hebrew? i bet they say something different about the earth than we think! especially considering the meanings of words change in time (gay, for instance), so circle back then MEANT something entirely, i'll bet.Edited by Mikael Fivel, : i had the reference for the other word, but not on hand right now