|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible's Flat Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2878 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2878 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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". refThe Moon in Ancient Egypt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
thingamabob Junior Member (Idle past 2645 days) Posts: 23 From: New Jerusalem Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024