Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 473 (499799)
02-20-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 11:02 AM


If a man was standing on the sea shore and began walking following the coast line he would eventually end up where he started....
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.
I'm not sure who you are intending this for, but this is exactly what some of us have been saying. Anyone looking around them, without the benefit of satellite images or the sophisticated arguments of the classical Greeks, would see a flat earth and so it's not surprising that flat earth imagery would be used in their writings.
I can't see why people want to try to force a spherical earth interpretation on this. Even the literalists acknowledge non-literal poetic language in the Bible -- I can't see why they can't just subsume these examples in that category.

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 115 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 11:02 AM thingamabob has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 122 of 473 (499815)
02-20-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
02-20-2009 4:20 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
OK found it. The book of Enoch supports the same idea.
Chapter LIII
7. In those days shall punishment go forth from the Lord of spirits; and the receptacles of water which are above the heavens shall be opened, and the fountains likewise, which are under the heavens and under the earth.
8 All the waters, which are in the heavens and above them, shall be mixed together.
9. The water which is above heaven shall be the agent.
10. And the water which is under the earth shall be the recipient: and all shall be destroyed who dwell upon the earth, and who dwell under the extremities of heaven.
So there is this layered model of flat earth over waters.
Also you dismissed my quote from Isaiah with the sun retreating by using a different translation that interpretes it as the shadow going back and not due to the sun's movement. Very well Habakkuk is later than Isaiah by approximately a hundred years. He seems to agree that it is the sun that moves as well.
Hab 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation:

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 130 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 1:11 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 473 (499817)
02-20-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Granny Magda
02-20-2009 12:09 PM


Flat Not Feasible
GM writes:
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'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an intelligent mature adult person in ancient times. I believe I would look at the moon and the sun and assume that the stars and all bodies in the cosmos would be spherical. It would not be (abe:likely) for thin discs to be positioned exactly parallel to the face of the earth (abe: and to each other. Nor would it be as likely for a flat disc to be fiery hot as it would be for a sphere.) It would be more logical to think that they were spherical and that the earth would be shaped like they were.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted.
Edited by Buzsaw, : First edit did not post the whole message so I had to resubmit it.

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 118 by Granny Magda, posted 02-20-2009 12:09 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-20-2009 7:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 125 by Kapyong, posted 02-20-2009 7:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 139 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2009 5:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 124 of 473 (499818)
02-20-2009 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
02-20-2009 7:24 PM


Re: Flat Not Feasible
Well a reasonable argument when viewed with hindsight. But people didn't travel as far across the globe as they do today nor have communication with distant peoples. A better argument for them 'figuring it out' might be the periods of the moon. That if anything should have given it away you'd think. Maybe if tidal forces didn't keep the same face always pointing towards earth. Apparently such 'obvious' facts with hindsight aren't obvious without.
The moon also had other associations in ancient Egypt. For example, on account of the similarity in shape of the crescent moon and a bull's horns, it was compared to that important animal. Hence, lunar gods are frequently described with "sharp horns".
ref
The Moon in Ancient Egypt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2009 7:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 125 of 473 (499820)
02-20-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
02-20-2009 7:24 PM


Re: Flat Not FeasibleHi
Hiya,
Buxsaw writes:
I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an intelligent mature adult person in ancient times. I believe I would look at the moon and the sun and assume that the stars and all bodies in the cosmos would be spherical. It would not be (abe:likely) for thin discs to be positioned exactly parallel to the face of the earth (abe: and to each other. Nor would it be as likely for a flat disc to be fiery hot as it would be for a sphere.) It would be more logical to think that they were spherical and that the earth would be shaped like they were.
So -
first you said Hebrew didn't even have a word for "sphere" (by simply ignoring the Hebrew word for "sphere".)
But now,
you say it was obvious back then that astronomical bodies were spherical?
If it was so obvious they were spheres, why didn't they have a word for "sphere" (according to you) ?
Kapyong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 02-20-2009 7:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 02-21-2009 6:17 PM Kapyong has replied

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


Message 126 of 473 (499834)
02-21-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coragyps
02-20-2009 10:02 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Admittedly, chewing the cud is done by an animal with two stomachs in which the food is processed twice. While the rabbit does not have two stomachs it does process its food twice
it does this by eating its droppings...those droppings thus go thru the digestive tract twice thus a rabbit, in this sense, is a chewer of the cud.
this is off topic

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

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


Message 127 of 473 (499835)
02-21-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by thingamabob
02-20-2009 11:02 AM


thingamabob writes:
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?
there would have been no man alive to witness that
by the time man came on the scene, the earth was a very different place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by thingamabob, posted 02-20-2009 11:02 AM thingamabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by thingamabob, posted 02-21-2009 9:35 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 128 of 473 (499837)
02-21-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Chiroptera
02-20-2009 10:44 AM


Chiroptera writes:
why we can't just accept that Isaiah, and the other writers of the Old Testament, used flat earth imagery in their writings?
because that is merely an interpretation a small group is putting on some verses
If i tried to tell you that the word 'immovable' means 'flat' you would laugh at me.
They mean completely different things yet an 'immovable earth' is being translated as 'a flat earth'
it doesnt make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2009 10:44 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Coragyps, posted 02-21-2009 9:42 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 138 by Kapyong, posted 02-21-2009 5:17 PM Peg has not replied

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


Message 129 of 473 (499840)
02-21-2009 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dman
02-20-2009 12:56 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Dman writes:
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.
Again, it comes down to the context. Can you read one sentence in a paragraph and know the context?
no, not likley.
You would need to read a whole paragraph in the bible to understand the context and only then can you determine if it is metaphorical or allegorical or literal
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dman, posted 02-20-2009 12:56 PM Dman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2009 11:37 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 130 of 473 (499841)
02-21-2009 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by shalamabobbi
02-20-2009 7:13 PM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
shalamabobbi writes:
So there is this layered model of flat earth over waters.
Also you dismissed my quote from Isaiah with the sun retreating by using a different translation that interpretes it as the shadow going back and not due to the sun's movement. Very well Habakkuk is later than Isaiah by approximately a hundred years. He seems to agree that it is the sun that moves as well.
it was a miracle. The shadow was given as a sign and the witnesses would have seen it as the sun staying put in the sky because from their perspective, its the sun that moves
just because the writer wrote that the sun stood still, does not have to mean that it literally stood still.
it stood still by their perspective only...and the inpsired writer saw the same event and so recorded it as the way he saw it.
About the book of Enoch...its not a bible book and its writings are quite different to what is found in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-20-2009 7:13 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by anglagard, posted 02-21-2009 3:07 AM Peg has replied
 Message 141 by Granny Magda, posted 02-21-2009 6:18 PM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 131 of 473 (499847)
02-21-2009 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Peg
02-21-2009 1:11 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Peg writes:
it was a miracle. The shadow was given as a sign and the witnesses would have seen it as the sun staying put in the sky because from their perspective, its the sun that moves
So was the earth still rotating as usual and the shadow an illusion placed by divine intervention in order to keep the testimony in Joshua infallible?
just because the writer wrote that the sun stood still, does not have to mean that it literally stood still.
Just because the Bible is literal doesn't mean it should be taken literally unless a self-proclaimed 'voice of god' says it is.
it stood still by their perspective only...and the inpsired writer saw the same event and so recorded it as the way he saw it.
Which makes subjective observations the same as objective truth regardless of contradiction as long as the human/divine interpreter says so. Great, everything is true and false at the same time!
About the book of Enoch...its not a bible book and its writings are quite different to what is found in the bible.
Tell that to the Ethiopians.
I have a question. Since according to you there are 'good' Bibles and 'bad' Bibles, 'literal' and 'literal but not literal' interpretations, 'good' science and 'bad' science depending upon what you claim is to be taken literally or not from any given Bible, are you stating that your person, because you claim to be inspired by that divine spark, are the sole and final arbiter of all religion and science for everyone on earth?
I just ask because you seem utterly unaware of self-contradiction or indeed even the concept of basic human humility before God when debating.
The Bible is literal and not literal but still is to be taken literally - Peg (in so many words)
It's a floor polish - wife.
No it's a desert topping - husband.
No it's a floor polish - wife.
Wait, it's both a floor polish and a desert topping - announcer.
Saturday Night Live, first season.
{ABE} I have nothing against you personally and am not seriously suggesting you are a person of infinite ego, but would you please think through some of these IMO irrational, self-contradictory, and indeed even bizarre statements before posting.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 1:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 3:52 AM anglagard has replied

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


Message 132 of 473 (499850)
02-21-2009 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by anglagard
02-21-2009 3:07 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
anglagard writes:
So was the earth still rotating as usual and the shadow an illusion placed by divine intervention in order to keep the testimony in Joshua infallible?
I would say that a miracle occurred by Gods power. Its not the only account of this happening. Joshua 10:13 says 'Accordingly the sun kept motionless, and the moon did stand still, until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies. Is it not written in the book of Ja′shar? And the sun kept standing still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for about a whole day.'
the event would be a miracle, God must have stopped the motion of the planet ,perhaps the universe... however he did it, and the bible doesnt say how, from the perspective of earths inhabitants, the sun was motionless in both instances.
anglagard writes:
I have a question. Since according to you there are 'good' Bibles and 'bad' Bibles, 'literal' and 'literal but not literal' interpretations, 'good' science and 'bad' science depending upon what you claim is to be taken literally or not from any given Bible, are you stating that your person, because you claim to be inspired by that divine spark, are the sole and final arbiter of all religion and science for everyone on earth?
I just ask because you seem utterly unaware of self-contradiction or indeed even the concept of basic human humility before God when debating.
are you saying that because i stick to my beliefs? I thought debate was about discussing varying perspectives...obviously i am wrong.
So i'll save you the controversy and just say You're right and I am wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by anglagard, posted 02-21-2009 3:07 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by anglagard, posted 02-21-2009 4:07 AM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 133 of 473 (499853)
02-21-2009 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Peg
02-21-2009 3:52 AM


Re: The Literal Interpretation is a Flat Earth
Peg writes:
are you saying that because i stick to my beliefs? I thought debate was about discussing varying perspectives...obviously i am wrong.
Or incompletely right. If anyone can say anything without resort to logic or evidence and all assertions are equally correct regardless, then the whole idea of debate or even rational discussion breaks down completely.
Might as well be posting in Urdu instead of English.
So i'll save you the controversy and just say You're right and I am wrong.
It's not about you or me, it's about using the Socratic and/or dialectic method to achieve an approximation of truth.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 3:52 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 134 of 473 (499899)
02-21-2009 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Peg
02-21-2009 12:40 AM


Hi Peg,
Peg says,
"there would have been no man alive to witness that
by the time man came on the scene, the earth was a very different place".
The land was all in one place on the third day and man was created on the sixth day.
So why wasn't man there?
When did the land mass get changed that he could not wittness it in one place?
thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 12:40 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2009 10:02 PM thingamabob has not replied
 Message 158 by Peg, posted 02-22-2009 12:34 AM thingamabob has not replied

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


Message 135 of 473 (499903)
02-21-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Peg
02-21-2009 12:49 AM


If i tried to tell you that the word 'immovable' means 'flat' you would laugh at me.
Not as hard as I laughed when you told us that "immovable" means "whizzing around the Sun in a mildly chaotic orbit at 107,000 kilometers per hour." That is funnier.
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
Edited by Coragyps, : not enough coffee yet

"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 128 by Peg, posted 02-21-2009 12:49 AM Peg 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