Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 106 of 473 (499738)
02-20-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Peg
02-20-2009 2:35 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
So you believe that the Jews from earliest times understood correct concepts of modern cosmology even though they lacked any knowledge beyond their neighboring peoples in math, chemistry, physics, biology, metallurgy. Do they also understand gravitational lensing then and time dilation as well? These are part of modern cosmology. Or do they just understand those parts of modern cosmology that you happen to understand as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 2:35 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 4:20 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 107 of 473 (499744)
02-20-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by shalamabobbi
02-20-2009 2:55 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
shalamabobbi writes:
So you believe that the Jews from earliest times understood correct concepts of modern cosmology even though they lacked any knowledge beyond their neighboring peoples in math, chemistry, physics, biology, metallurgy. Do they also understand gravitational lensing then and time dilation as well? These are part of modern cosmology. Or do they just understand those parts of modern cosmology that you happen to understand as well?
no, its more likely that as a group they didnt know the inner workings of the cosmos and the earth...but what they did know came from their God
So we should look at the things that they did know
Off topic material is hidden. Use peek if you want to read it but do NOT respond.
While Aristotle taught that the earth rested on Solid transparent spheres, the bible writer said that the earth was suspended upon nothing.
The bible says that the earth is Round/Circular, only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle. No matter how you want to interpret it, a circular earth is accurate to a person on the ground. To a person in space, the earth appears as a circle from all angles.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-20-2009 2:55 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 02-20-2009 10:02 AM Peg has replied
 Message 113 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2009 10:35 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 119 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-20-2009 12:53 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 122 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-20-2009 7:13 PM Peg has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 473 (499759)
02-20-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 1:05 AM


If I am not mistaken there is only one place on earth that there is a perfect circle and that is at the equator.
Yeah. There was a poster here who was convinced that God lived in a space ship orbiting above the equator.
Makes about as much sense as anything the "literalists" (who we can now see are not actually literalists) are trying to say in this thread.

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 1:05 AM thingamabob has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 109 of 473 (499765)
02-20-2009 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
02-19-2009 6:02 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Hello Peg,
Please forgive the delay in reply; I've had internet problems at my end. Some comments:
1) You ask why we should take the "foundations of the earth" verses as being literal. There are many reasons. They have been traditionally interpreted as being literal. They form part of an overall picture of a flat-earth-domed-sky cosmology, alongside over a score of other passages. They make sense of other Bible passages, especially Genesis. They are mentioned many times, in apparently literal contexts. Take another look at this;
Proverbs 8:27-29
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
A circle on the deep. Foundations of the earth. Even fountains of the deep, the same ones that Fludists are so insistent are literally true. This verse is extolling God's magnificent achievements. This would hardly be very impressive if those achievements were only metaphorical. They are clearly literal, just as the foundations seen by Enoch were literal. They are one and the same. The ancient Hebrews believed in foundations of the earth. Live with it.
2) If we are not to take any of these passages literally, including those that have been literally interpreted for centuries, why take any Bible passage literally? If Isaiah 48:13 is not to be taken literally, why should Genesis 1 be taken literally?
3) You talk about interpreting verses in context, but you have chosen to concentrate on a single verse for most of this thread. Basing your views on that single verse, to the exclusion of the rest of the many flat-earth and domed-sky quotes I have produced is hardly an example of proper context. If there were only a handful of these passages in the text, I would not give the idea any credence. There are not though, there are many such quotes.
4) You say that chwg can mean sphere. if this is so, perhaps you might indulge me by providing a clear and unambiguous example of chwg being used to describe a sphere other than the Earth. Should be easy right?
5) Even if one were to accept that chwg can mean sphere, you have provided no evidence that it does mean sphere, in this particular verse. You are simply assuming that it does because you know the Earth to be spherical and you have a preconceived notion that the Bible must be correct. Why should we assume that chwg in this case means sphere, when there is so much else in the Bible that suggests a flat earth and therefore an interpretation as circle?
6) There's no need to be snotty.
quote:
Take it from GM that the bible teach's a flat earth and be done with it. Anyone who doesnt agree is wrong anyway.
I don't know for sure what the authors thought. I can't go back in time and ask them. The point is neither can you, yet you seem to be certain of your ability to correctly interpret the text, as though you were some kind of oracle.
I don't have exclusive access to the truth. All I can do is study the text and read what it says. It says a lot of things that make sense only on a flat Earth. That is why I am forced to surmise that the authors believed the Earth was flat. I have produced many passages to back this up, along with other corroborating evidence. You have chosen to challenge very little of this.
7) It's "time flies", not time fly's". If I took that literally I would be thinking of time travelling insects!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 02-19-2009 6:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 110 of 473 (499775)
02-20-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-20-2009 4:20 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
They wrote that Rabbits were chewers of the cud, something that has only recently been confirmed by the Smithsonian Institute
They wrote that the teeth have a layer of skin before the invention of the telescope
Oh dear! We are getting deep in the woo now.....
I want to see references for these asinine assertions, Peg.

"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 107 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 4:20 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by AdminNosy, posted 02-20-2009 10:27 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 126 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 12:34 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 111 of 473 (499777)
02-20-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones*
02-20-2009 1:14 AM


Hi DrJones*,
I know the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that is the reason Isaiah did not use the word for ball.
I read that the diameter at the equator is 43 km larger than the pole to pole diameter
So maybe you could answer this question for me then.
At what point along the equator is the diameter of the earth less than 7,926.41 miles?
thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 02-20-2009 1:14 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2009 10:44 AM thingamabob has not replied
 Message 116 by lyx2no, posted 02-20-2009 11:12 AM thingamabob has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 112 of 473 (499778)
02-20-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coragyps
02-20-2009 10:02 AM


Topic!
Rabbits and teeth skin are NOT the topic here. Thank you.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 02-20-2009 10:02 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 473 (499779)
02-20-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-20-2009 4:20 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
The bible says that the earth is Round/Circular, only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle. No matter how you want to interpret it, a circular earth is accurate to a person on the ground. To a person in space, the earth appears as a circle from all angles.
*sigh* I just don't understand why people can't just read these verses in the most natural way. Now people are trying to claim that Isaiah went into space and looked at the earth for their interpretation to make sense which, unfortunately for them, is having the opposite effect.

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 4:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 473 (499780)
02-20-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 10:23 AM


I know the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that is the reason Isaiah did not use the word for ball.
And so he used an even less accurate word for it?
Will someone please just try to explain why we can't just accept that Isaiah, and the other writers of the Old Testament, used flat earth imagery in their writings? Why do we have to try so hard to force a spherical earth interpretation on all of this?

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 10:23 AM thingamabob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 12:49 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 115 of 473 (499784)
02-20-2009 11:02 AM


Hi,
I am amazed at many of the comments here and it raises several questions in my mind.
Maybe someone can help me with them.
Gen. 1:9, 10 tells us that all the land mass was in one place and it was called earth.
If a man was standing on the sea shore and began walking following the coast line he would eventually end up where he started.
Would this man have any way of knowing he was not on a flat piece of ground, except for the rises he could see?
If this same man was standing in the middle of the earth (land mass), there would be four points on the sea shore.
There would be the North, South, East and West points on the sea shore from where he was standing.
Would this not be the four corners of the earth (land mass)?
thing

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Granny Magda, posted 02-20-2009 12:09 PM thingamabob has not replied
 Message 121 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2009 1:04 PM thingamabob has not replied
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 12:40 AM thingamabob has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 116 of 473 (499785)
02-20-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 10:23 AM


Could You be More Specific
I know the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that is the reason Isaiah did not use the word for ball.
Isaiah has a spheroidal object with a short radius of 5 cm and a long radius of 5.02 cm: what does Isaiah call it?
At what point along the equator is the diameter of the earth less than 7,926.41 miles?
This is a gravity map of Earth.
At what point along the equator is the diameter of the Earth 7,926.41 miles?

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 10:23 AM thingamabob has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 117 of 473 (499788)
02-20-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones*
02-20-2009 1:14 AM


DrJones writes:
And you'd be wrong as the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but rather is an oblate spheriod, and thus the equator is not a perfect circle.
just a technical correction...the equator of a perfectly oblate spheroid is a circle, as are all latitude lines. the longitudinal lines are ellipses with a positive eccentricity.
however, since the earth isnt even a perfect oblate spheroid, and because of the moon's tidal force, even the projection of the sea level through any land masses encountered as it travels around the earth and back to it's starting point, is still not a circle, so DrJones does have a correct conclusion, just not the correct reason.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 02-20-2009 1:14 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 118 of 473 (499790)
02-20-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 11:02 AM


Four Corners, Four Winds
Hi there thingamabob and welcome to EvC Forum. If you enjoy being presented with difficult questions, you've come to the right place!
quote:
Gen. 1:9, 10 tells us that all the land mass was in one place and it was called earth.
If a man was standing on the sea shore and began walking following the coast line he would eventually end up where he started.
Would this man have any way of knowing he was not on a flat piece of ground, except for the rises he could see?
In my opinion, no. In fact many people today who are unfortunate enough to not have been educated to the contrary, assume that the Earth is flat. Children tend to assume that the Earth is flat until they are told otherwise.
I once saw a rather moving segment from a travel programme, where an African man, living on the equator, was confronted with an inflatable globe. Although he seemed to be far from unintelligent, he had clearly never before encountered a globe or the idea of a spherical Earth. He clearly recognised the outline of the African continent as he traced it with his finger, with an attitude of amazement. He wanted to know why we didn't fall off, a very reasonable question in the circumstances.
No-one had told him otherwise, so he, quite reasonably, assumed that the earth was flat. It's fair enough. It does look flat. Only at sea would the ancient peoples of the Middle East have been able to see the curvature of the Earth, by the way ships appeared or disappeared at the horizon, and the Hebrews were no great seafarers. The curvature can be measured, but it is far from obvious. The Greek philosopher Eratosthenes used a comparison of the lengths of shadows in different locations to measure the Earth's diameter, but he already knew that the was spherical. In short, the sphericity of the Earth is far from obvious and the ancient Hebrews can easily be forgiven for not noticing it.
quote:
If this same man was standing in the middle of the earth (land mass), there would be four points on the sea shore.
There would be the North, South, East and West points on the sea shore from where he was standing.
Would this not be the four corners of the earth (land mass)?
Good question. As far as I can make out, this is very much how the Bible authors viewed the world. One interesting observation is that the Bible, as well as referring to the "four corners of the earth" makes repeated reference to "the four winds". There is one at each "corner" (probably the four cardinal directions). There are several, but take a look at these as examples;
Jeremiah 49:36
I will bring against Elam the four winds from the four quarters of the heavens; I will scatter them to the four winds, and there will not be a nation where Elam's exiles do not go.
Ezekiel 37:9
Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.' "
Mark 13:27
And then they will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Apparently, these winds are kept in chambers, as can be seen here;
Job 37:9
The tempest comes out from its chamber, the cold from the driving winds.
These chambers are mentioned in the apocryphal Book of Enoch, were they are described in detail.
1. I saw the treasuries of all the winds: I saw how He had furnished with them the whole creation and the firm foundations of the earth. 2. And I saw the corner-stone of the earth: I saw the four winds which bear [the earth and] the firmament of the heaven. 3. ⌈⌈And I saw how the winds stretch out the vaults of heaven⌉⌉, and have their station between heaven and earth: ⌈⌈these are the pillars of the heaven⌉⌉. 4. I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and all the stars to their setting. 5. I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw ⌈⌈the paths of the angels. I saw⌉⌉ at the end of the earth the firmament of the heaven above.
These are very clearly literal chambers that house the four winds. The mainstream canonical Bible (the Book of Enoch is canon in the Ethiopian church) contains nothing to contradict this view. Food for thought.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 11:02 AM thingamabob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2009 7:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2848 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 119 of 473 (499795)
02-20-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-20-2009 4:20 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Another verse to consider on this topic then I have work to do:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
I believe this idea of a water layer under the earth ties in with a flat earth. Maybe GM can point out any correlation here with the book of Enoch. It has been some time since I've read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 4:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 120 of 473 (499797)
02-20-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Peg
02-20-2009 1:30 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
quote:
From an earthly perspective, it is the sun that appears to move across the sky... so the writers were simply explaining the things they saw from the perspective that they saw them
How come it is ok to say that the writers explained things the way they saw them when talking about the sun, but not for the earth itself? More importantly how can you tell when they were writing from perspective and not?
As it has been said earlier in the thread, looking at the horizon the earth seems flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Peg, posted 02-20-2009 1:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 1:00 AM Dman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024