Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5269 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 3 of 473 (498966)
02-15-2009 6:36 PM


Christian responses to the idea of a flat earth evidence in the Bible always baffle me, especially when I present them with this little tidbit from Matthew:
Matthew 4:8 "Next the devil took Him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed Him the nations of the world and all their glory".
This would make sense, if the Earth were indeed flat, and the mountain was sufficiently high enough. But again, anyone with an elementary school education knows that the Earth is in fact not flat.
Perhaps this is one of those metaphor-thingies that Christians like to call upon whenever they don't know the answer to things. But then we can safely say that this interpretation isn't literal.
If this specific story isn't literal, then how can you differentiate between this and any other given story in the Bible?
Edited by RDK, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 02-16-2009 11:35 AM RDK has not replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5269 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 replied

  
RDK
Junior Member (Idle past 5269 days)
Posts: 26
From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Joined: 11-23-2008


Message 43 of 473 (499260)
02-17-2009 9:59 PM


I'm confused. Does Buzsaw normally completely ignore replies to his posts, or am I some sort of unusual case?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024