Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
72 online now:
anglagard, AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, PaulK (5 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,915 Year: 3,561/14,102 Month: 181/321 Week: 41/59 Day: 2/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 473 (499059)
02-16-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Engineer
02-15-2009 9:56 PM


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:

The image that comes to my mind is a flat earth with the sky-dome being put in place above it. It was a common belief in those days that the sky was a dome made of a solid material. I bet that is the image that the Bronze Age Hebrews had in mind, and I suspect that Isaiah was probably thinking the same thing.

Considering that a flat earth with a material sky being erected above it was a common belief at this time in other cultures, why would you decide that the proper interpretation in this case is a spherical earth?


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 9:56 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5551
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 473 (499062)
02-16-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Engineer
02-16-2009 6:53 AM


Re: Round, Flat, Sphere, Curvlinear or what?
Well I gave you the reference, and there isn't a Hebrew word that distinguishes a sphere from a round (but flat) object.

So Frisbees and soccer balls were the same shape in old Jerusalem? I don't believe you, though I'm certainly no Hebrew scholar.

Isa 22:18 "He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball...." where "ball" is from h1754 ãåø duwr.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=22&v=18&t=KJV#conc/18


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 6:53 AM Engineer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2009 7:36 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 4201 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 18 of 473 (499091)
02-16-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
02-15-2009 9:02 PM


Re: Apprising The Skeptic
Daniel was interpreting a dream of the king. Obviously this was metaphoric. This is a looong stretch on your part. We all know how ridiculous dreams can get.

If not every part of the Bible is literal, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Who gets to make that distinction? You?

LOL. All this is depicting is the fact that the earth is designed and shaped according to the design intended for it. The topography of it is irrelevant for the purpose of the analogy.

Perhaps more like the features (I.E., life) on / of earth adapted TO the already existing earth. Creationists have it backwards. But this is beside the point.

The devil never physically took Jesus anywhere. Obviously a man standing anywhere on the earth could not see physically with his eyes all of the kingdoms of the earth

I'm glad you think it's obvious too.

whether it was flat or spherical.

Actually, no. If the "mountain" was sufficiently high enough, you could essentially be able to view the whole Earth (given that it is flat--which, I hope you'll agree, it is not).

That the temptations were visions is further evidenced by the fact that a man and the devil are not going to be standing physically on the pinnacle of the temple. This was a visionary event.

Again, where are you getting this from? The passage itself doesn't explicitly state this, so you must be getting it from an outside source. I thought the Bible was to be taken literally?

Then I guess Genesis, the Flood, and Revelation are to be taken metaphorically also, seeing as how they're equally ridiculous.

This is nothing but a bare assertion, having no evidence.

Are you arguing the Hebrew meaning of "firmament"? It's fairly clear what the passage is talking about.

This is not clearly a solid domed sky. Obviously you're not savvy to Biblical speak. You, like other skeptics metaphorize texts which are clearly not meant to be and cite intentionally abstract texts to falsify the scriptures.

Once again--where and how are you making this distinction? Apparently you're some kind of Biblical scholar if you think you can pick and choose which passages are metaphorical on a whim.

I fail to see correlation to a flat earth here. As for the waters, we know that there is water in the atmosphere. What's the deal?

But a separation between both "waters"? How do you reconcile this? Surely he's not talking about individual air particles. Water in the atmosphere is EVERYWHERE in the atmosphere; there's no visible "separation"; at least not one big enough to be cited by Yahweh himself.

In Job 26:7, "....he hangeth the earth upon nothing." (ASV) So the foundation thing which you cited simply means it's location is established.

As it's been said before, the Earth is most definitely not "established". I don't really consider an object hurling through space at breakneck speeds along an orbit as "fixed", and I hope neither do you.

Consider this: The Bible says there was a world wide flood covering the whole earth. On a sphere, this could apply, but not feasable on a flat earth.

Why not? God could have thrown in temporary "walls" out of nowhere to hold the water in. Seeing as how everything else about the flood is equally unfeasible and unrealistic, I don't see a problem with God going a little extra.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2009 9:02 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1780 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 19 of 473 (499099)
02-16-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Engineer
02-15-2009 9:56 PM


hi engineer
Look at revelation chapters 21 and 22.

21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

So apparently the entire universe goes along with the earth in its death throws..
And an entire new universe is created for the new earth when it is reborn..

22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light:..

If a spherical planet is what is intended here, what about the shadow from the light of God upon the darkside of the planet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Engineer, posted 02-15-2009 9:56 PM Engineer has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 20 of 473 (499106)
02-16-2009 6:51 PM


The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Well, I sure seem to have disturbed a hornet’s nest here! :) I’m not going to reply to each message individually, as I don’t have the time, but I will deal with most of the objections raised so far in this post.

Daniel 4:10-11 Yes, I am aware that this is a dream. It is however, a dream that speaks of a flat Earth world-view. I don’t know about anyone else, but I tend to dream of those images that make sense to me. This dream (which one strongly suspects never actually took place anyway) helps inform us of the word-view of the characters and authors. It clearly presents a flat-Earth and nothing is said to contradict this impression.

Job 38:14 This has been described as metaphorical and indeed it is. I would not care to contradict that. It is though, a metaphor that speaks to a flat-earth world-view. It makes no sense, even as a metaphor, if the author understood the Earth to be spherical (or spheroidal in fact). Has anyone ever stamped out a sphere? This line is poetic, but it the poetry of a flat-Earther.

Matthew 4:1-12 I see no reason to assume that this incident is metaphorical. In each instance of the story, the Devil takes Jesus to a high place to show him the sights. The obvious implication is that it is the elevated position that is allowing the view. If this story is metaphorical, how much more of Matthew should be considered metaphorical? The temptation of Jesus is a pretty central story in the New Testament narrative and it is usually interpreted fairly literally. If part of the story is metaphor, might the whole story be metaphor? What of the rest of Matthew? It is certainly not a literal approach to this text.

Buzsaw writes:

The devil never physically took Jesus anywhere. .. {snip} ...This was a visionary event.

If these events were merely visions, why describe them in a manner that suggests physical movement? The author was quite capable of describing a vision if he so wished. He did not. Why do you think the authors were so incapable of saying what they meant?

Job 22:14 & Isaiah 40:22 The clear implication of these verses is a solid dome-like sky. I am far from alone in this view.

However, it is agreed upo n by all the sources that at least some early church fathers did believe in a flat earth. And of course, those who believed in a spherical earth still believed that the earth did not move and that the "firmament" was solid, and Holy Scripture continued to be cited in support of those latter two assertions for centuries. Origen called the firmament "without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant" (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).

Source

How about another verse?

Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Is that clear enough? It sounds very clear to me. The skies are solid, as in “not gaseous”. Job 37:18 makes explicit the etymology of the word raqiya, or “firmament” as the KJV has it. Raqiya is etymologically derived from riqqua, meaning beaten out, as per the beating out of a bronze pot, typical of the time. The concept of the skies as a bronze dome, an idea held by early Greeks as well, is made obvious here. They are also clearly dome or tent-like in shape, as is seen in this extract;

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 like a tent to dwell in;

This verse makes clear both the solidity of the dome and its tent-like shape. You can, of course, insist that it is poetic language and you would be quite right. It still remains though, poetry abut a flat-earth written by flat-Earthers for flat-Earthers.

Genesis 1 The creation story, which makes little sense from a modern perspective, is much clearer when understood in the context of a flat-earth. There are waters above the firmament, which fall through “windows” as rain. There are waters below as well, namely the seas and rivers etc. The stars are fixed in the structure of this firmament (Gen 1:17). The stars, amusingly, are quite small and, in other Biblical books, can fall to Earth.

Buzsaw writes:

I fail to see correlation to a flat earth here. As for the waters, we know that there is water in the atmosphere. What's the deal?

The concept of the domed sky is important to understanding the overall picture of Biblical cosmology. It is not sensible to attempt to understand one without the other. By the way, the waters are described as being separated by the firmament, not being part of the firmament. Only a solid dome could achieve this. Further, it would be able to hold back those pesky Flud waters.

Genesis is geocentric, it assumes the earth is immobile and that the sky is a solid dome, bedecked with (small) stars. The earth is the important bit, the rest of the universe is mere window dressing. The whole of Gen 1 and 2 make much more sense when viewed this way.

Job 26:7 Just because the earth is hung upon nothing, does not mean that it must be spherical. This verse is entirely consistent with the flat-Earth described in 1 Enoch, which has a great void above and below.

Peg writes:

Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres and this was the belief in the 16th and 17th centuries when his teachings were the status quo.
Yet nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging 'upon nothing at Job 26:7. In the original Hebrew, the word for nothing is beli-mah′ and literally means 'without anything'.

There is no contradiction here at all. In those days, there was no sense of comparison between the earth (not non-capitalisation there) and the heavenly bodies. The earth was thought of as a completely different category of object, namely a flat disc-like structure at the centre of the cosmos. There was no concept of “The Earth” (with capitalisation). Stars and planets, the Sun and Moon were considered to be comparatively small objects that flew above the earth. The very difference in the way the Bible treats the earth and heavenly bodies, throughout, only serves to demonstrate that these Hebrew authors had no idea that the earth and the planets were comparable.

The Earth Does Not Move 1 Chronicles, Psalms and Isaiah all say that the earth is fixed and/or immobile. Peg insists that these statements cannot be taken literally, they are poetic in nature. I beg to differ. Take the statement “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”. This is clearly a statement in praise of God for his having fixed the earth in place. All it is saying is “Isn’t God great? He fixed the earth in place!”. It is a testament to God’s physical achievement in creating the immobile earth. Again and again the Bible makes reference to the “foundations of the earth”. By this, I propose, it means exactly what it says. The earth is fixed in place,upon solid foundations. It is immobile. "Immobile" does not mean "hurtling through space". To assume that it does is very far from a literal interpretation.

Early church fathers believed these verses to be literal and right through to the days of Luther and Calvin, the predominant view was that the earth was stationary at the centre of the cosmos. Only when these views were challenged by Copernicus and Galileo did the interpretation of these verses completely change. Some desperate few still cling on to the flat or geocentric Earth.

Chuwg versus Dwur I think that this argument is patronising to the Bible authors. These were not stupid men. They were not some bunch of wandering goat-herders, they were the most educated men of their time and culture. They were quite capable of describing a sphere, as Isaiah’s use of duwr demonstrates. They could have described the earth as “like a ball” if had they so wished. They did not. They called it as they saw it and not unreasonably; the earth does, after all, look flat. They were not stupid for thinking this. They merely lacked a critical (and non-obvious} piece of information.

What is especially ridiculous is the idea that these authors, especially the Old Testament authors, had access to special knowledge that the earth was a sphere and didn’t bother to mention it! A passing reference that might just be interpreted as meaning “sphere” is not enough. If these people had this knowledge, at a time when everyone else on earth believed they were living upon a disc, why did they not embrace this idea and promulgate it? If it were me, I would take special care to communicate this important new idea. Are we to suppose that these authors just ignored it? Were they idiots? No. They just didn’t have any such idea; they thought the earth was flat.

1 Enoch Peg objects to my mention of Enoch, saying that it is not canon and thus not relevant. I find this argument without merit. Only a dyed in the wool Christian could find this compelling. If we were inquiring into early Islamic thought, would we only view the Haditha that are currently accepted by Muslims? Or would we prefer to examine all sources for whatever insight might be found? 1 Enoch and other apocryphal works give us an insight into the mindset of people at the time. Enoch in particular gives us an important insight into Hebrew thought in the inter-Testamental period. There is no reason to strike it from the record simply because it fell out of favour later on.

1 Enoch was clearly respected by New Testament authors. It contains many themes that are picked up in the New Testament. The cosmos presented is a near perfect match for the cosmos implied in the Bible. If the NT authors knew Enoch’s sci-fi vision quest to be an absurd flat-earth nonsense, why did they trust and respect him enough to quote him? Why did the author of Jude believe 1 Enoch to have been authored by the eponymous Enoch himself, as certainly seems to be the case?

The Big Picture If I had presented any one of the arguments above on its own and claimed a flat-Earth Bible form that alone, I would be taking the piss. But the fact is that these passages, alongside many others that I have yet to mention, add up to form a coherent whole. Viewed as a whole, the bible has far too many passages that seem to presuppose a flat earth for us to dismiss. Never does it explicitly describe the earth as spherical, mobile or orbital. Backed up by the prevailing flat-earth mythologies that surrounded the Hebrew world and the opinions of early Church fathers, the case for a flat-earth Hebrew cosmology is strong.

Okay, enough for now...

There is one thing that I agree with though;

Meldinoor writes:

Christians have interpreted the bible differently ever since it was written, and do so still. Obviously when new discoveries are made, like evolution, heliocentrism, etc. people read different meanings into the same words.
Nowhere does the bible say that the writers (yes, human writers, even if inspired by an omniscient deity) knew all the facts of the universe.


This is true. Nowhere does the Bible claim to have all the facts. Indeed, it does not. The problem is that when those facts inconveniently intrude upon scripture, the scripture is re-interpreted to fit the new facts, as though it had never been otherwise. I think that this does an injustice to the Bible. It is not a modern science primer and it does not describe modern views. It describes the world as it was understood at the time, sometimes with more accuracy than others. This is its real value and torturing it until it says what it was never intended to say does nobody any favours.

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 8:52 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 473 (499117)
02-16-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coragyps
02-16-2009 12:46 PM


Re: Round, Flat, Sphere, Curvlinear or what?
Coragyps writes:

Isa 22:18 "He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball...." where "ball" is from h1754 ãåø duwr.

Mmm, sounds a lot like this, relative to the apocalyptic last days:

Isaiah 24:20a:

The earth shall stagger like a drunken man, and shall sway to and fro like a hammock;.......

For the purpose of this thread, the wording in this text would apply more to a planet in orbit than to a flat platform on literal foundations.

Perhaps the earth's orbit will be suddenly adjusted to usher in the messianic millenium in which, according to the prophets, will be similar to what it was pre-flood. According to those prophecies, the world will be a different planet for that event. To go into this indepth would require a new topic.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 02-16-2009 12:46 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-16-2009 8:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2009 8:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1780 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 22 of 473 (499122)
02-16-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-16-2009 7:36 PM


Re: Round, Flat, Sphere, Curvlinear or what?
hey Buz,

back up to verse 18 in Is 24:

for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2009 7:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 473 (499125)
02-16-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-16-2009 7:36 PM


Re: Round, Flat, Sphere, Curvlinear or what?
For the purpose of this thread, the wording in this text would apply more to a planet in orbit than to a flat platform on literal foundations.

Not to me it doesn't. A planet in an orbit wouldn't shake back and forth. If something were to strike a planet hard enough to change its orbit, then it would simply continue on in its new orbit.

On the other hand, the quotation that you provide is very familiar to someone who has sat on a very wobbly chair -- a supposedly solid object that does rest on a "foundation" of solid legs. And, in fact, it pretty much describes what being in an earthquake feels like (I speak from my own experience). So, again, to me the verse pretty much describes an earthquake.


Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-16-2009 7:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 24 of 473 (499126)
02-16-2009 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Granny Magda
02-16-2009 6:51 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Granny Magda writes:

Take the statement “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”. This is clearly a statement in praise of God for his having fixed the earth in place. All it is saying is “Isn’t God great? He fixed the earth in place!”. It is a testament to God’s physical achievement in creating the immobile earth. Again and again the Bible makes reference to the “foundations of the earth”. By this, I propose, it means exactly what it says. The earth is fixed in place,upon solid foundations. It is immobile.

Are you ignoring the scripture that clearly states

'He is hanging the earth upon nothing' Job 22:14

If the earth is hung upon nothing, it certainly cannot also be 'fixed' upon something.

You are placing an interpretation on something that is clearly not there.

when we first saw pictures of the earth from space, it IS a circle we see

and from an earthly perspective, when you look up at the sky, it IS a dome that we see.

Does not the Atmosphere act as a dome?

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2009 6:51 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2009 9:24 PM Peg has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 25 of 473 (499129)
02-16-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peg
02-16-2009 8:52 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Hi Peg,

Peg writes:

Are you ignoring the scripture that clearly states

quote:
He is hanging the earth upon nothing' Job 22:14

No, and I believe that I did specifically address that. Hanging on nothing does not imply spherical. As for the contradiction between "foundations" and Job 22:14, I never said that the Bible was entirely consistent. There are contradictions whichever way you slice it. For instance, the earth is described as a circle, but the earth also has both corners;

quote:
Isaiah 41:9
you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";

Also Job 37:3, Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2, Revelation 7:1 and more.

The earth also has ends/edges;

quote:
Job 38:13
that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

Also Deuteronomy 28:64, Psalms 22:27 and about a dozen more.

These are contradictions whether the intent is a circular flat Earth or a spherical one. Circles don't have corners (cardinal directions is probably closer to the intent) and neither do spheres (where exactly is the East Pole?). Circles don't have ends either. They might have "skirts" or edges though, whereas a sphere could not.

What's that you say? metaphorical language? You are not so keen for the language to be metaphorical when it appears to support a spherical world-image are you?

quote:
You are placing an interpretation on something that is clearly not there.

No, I am merely reading the text as it is written. The authors were not cretins. They were capable of saying what they meant. If they knew that the earth was a spherical planet, they would have made that clear, given the novelty and import of such information.

quote:
when we first saw pictures of the earth from space, it IS a circle we see

Unless I have badly understood my bible history, it was not written in orbit. You're not Erich von Däniken are you?

From the ground, the Earth looks flat. Look out your window; does the world look spherical? Not especially.

quote:
and from an earthly perspective, when you look up at the sky, it IS a dome that we see.

Yes, it does look like a dome. That is why Bronze Age Hebrew writers thought that it was a dome and why later Proto-Christians followed suit.

quote:
Does not the Atmosphere act as a dome?

No, it acts as a layer of gas around a sphere, because that's what it is. And it bears very little resemblance to the Bible's description of it.

What's the big deal anyway? The Bible is wrong about lots of things. This is just one of them. It's no biggie. Just accept it and move on. :)

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Missed a bit.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 8:52 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 10:02 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 02-17-2009 7:45 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 26 of 473 (499137)
02-16-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Granny Magda
02-16-2009 9:24 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
What's the big deal anyway? The Bible is wrong about lots of things. This is just one of them. It's no biggie. Just accept it and move on.

yet it still doesnt say the earth is flat
find a verse that calls it flat...you cant because its not there.

People have used the colorful language of the bible as a means of claiming that it says things that it quite obviously does not say.

Its interpretation and nothing more.

the book of Job said the earth was hanging upon nothing...unlike other beliefs at the time that it was attached to something solid.

Isiaha clearly stated that it was circular. The Hebrew word he used was 'chugh' In hebrew it can also mean sphere which is why some translators chose 'globe' and 'round' in this verse...thats in the Douay Version and Moffatt bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2009 9:24 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-16-2009 10:11 PM Peg has responded
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2009 10:26 PM Peg has responded
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 02-17-2009 6:52 AM Peg has responded
 Message 35 by Kapyong, posted 02-17-2009 5:12 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1780 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 27 of 473 (499140)
02-16-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
02-16-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
yet it still doesnt say the earth is flat
find a verse that calls it flat...you cant because its not there.

You might want to take that up with these people:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 10:02 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 02-17-2009 3:06 AM shalamabobbi has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 28 of 473 (499145)
02-16-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
02-16-2009 10:02 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Peg now you are just embarrassing yourself. GM has provided dozens of references that show the writers thought of the earth as flat. It is getting to the point that your refutations are ridiculous.

Is there a passage that says "The earth is flat". No. Are their passages that a normal person would interpret as saying the same thing? Yes, lots of them. GM has provided plenty to show you are manipulating what the bible says so that you won't lose the argument. You lost. Accept it and be done with it. Because now you are looking silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 02-16-2009 10:02 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peg, posted 02-17-2009 3:16 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 29 of 473 (499184)
02-17-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by shalamabobbi
02-16-2009 10:11 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
yeah i did look at that site

im certainly not convinced that any of the scriptures they use to back up their claims can be read the way they are reading them

i actually doubt that these people are serious...surely its some sort of joke

it certainly makes me laugh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-16-2009 10:11 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-17-2009 7:29 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 473 (499185)
02-17-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
02-16-2009 10:26 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Theodoric writes:

GM has provided dozens of references that show the writers thought of the earth as flat.

GM is simply repeating what the 'flat earth society' are claiming...its nothing more then their interpretation.

I've pointed out that the hebrew word for circle is the same for sphere

i've shown the full context of the scriptures GM used in her initial post...the context itself was enough to disprove the claim that the writers were talking about a flat earth


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2009 10:26 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 02-17-2009 7:01 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021