Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 226 of 473 (500521)
02-26-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Granny Magda
02-26-2009 12:14 PM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
GM writes:
This is a fantasy. All cultures are influenced by their neighbours. As Modulous has said, are you really going to force us to prove this to you? It ought to be obvious. (Hint; both have flood myths)
it could be a topic for a new thread and i'd most definitely be up for that. I think i could prove otherwise.
GM writes:
Again, I am in agreement with Mod. The text, in English at any rate, has these comparisons as similes. A simile can be literally true. The sky can be literally like a curtain, without literally being a curtain.
Great. But tell me why the 'dome' cannot be taken in the same way...or the 'Four Corners' ... why would you choose to read these literally and not attribute them to being nothing more then a simile or an expression of speech.
After all, people today still say 'the sun rises/sets' even though they know the sun does not move. We know this and yet still call it the way we see it...why could the writers not call it the way they see it?
GM writes:
The Bible makes a great many concrete claims about the world and the cosmos.
to the contrary, the bible does not say much about the cosmos & earth at all. The only detailed account we have about the earth is in Gen Chp 1 & 2 and a few pages in the book of Job. the Genesis account is very general about the creation of the planet.
GM writes:
No-one would communicate using flat earth imagery if they did not believe in a flat earth, at least not in a holy book that was intended to be believed. Use of flat earth allegories is evidence that the culture of both audience and author(s) was a flat earth culture.
thats not true. As i said above, today we use the same imagery when talking about sunrise and sunset. We still say that the sun will rise at 6.20am and set at some time in the evening. Why do we use such language if we know that the sun does not set or rise.
Its nothing more then a figure of speech and we know that...the hebrews used the same figures of speech.
GM writes:
Why is it surely figurative? The Bible has God leaving mankind as stewards of this world. It seems like a pretty clear reference to this world to me.
the point was that the bible calls both 'earth' and 'people' the world. It uses the same term for both. Showing once again that the language of the bible is often metaphorical or symbolic.
GM writes:
The Book of Enoch is an incredibly close match for the canonical Bible in its cosmology. It uses the exact same language to describe the same things, including the firmament, the four winds, the windows of heaven, the cornerstone of the earth and more. In the Ethiopian church, it actually is canon. It was well respected enough to be quoted in Jude.
Jude may simply have quoted a common source such as an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation. Its never been proved that he actually quoted from that book, not that it makes any difference to me if he did because there are other teachings in there that prove that it is not an inspired book.
The ethiopian church's also have the ark of the covenant in 3 or 4 sacred locations under guard... im not sure how reliable they are lol.
GM writes:
Ask yourself this; if the author of Jude knew the Earth to be a sphere, would he have had any respect for the prophecies of Enoch? Wouldn't Enoch's cosmic grand tour have made someone who knew the truth of the earth's shape a little suspicious? Anyone with knowledge of a spherical Earth would have known that 1 Enoch could not possibly be true. So why quote a lying prophet?
thats a fine point.
Although its based on the assumption that the jews did think in terms of flat earth though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2009 12:14 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2009 12:10 AM Peg has replied
 Message 231 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2009 6:37 AM Peg has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 227 of 473 (500523)
02-27-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Peg
02-26-2009 10:58 PM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
the point was that the bible calls both 'earth' and 'people' the world. It uses the same term for both. Showing once again that the language of the bible is often metaphorical or symbolic.
So then why wouldn't the flood and the Adam & Eve story be allegories?
Or why not the stories of Jonah & Job?
If one wants to believe anything in the Bible, some other person can easily say it is simply an allegory or a fable or a myth, no different than the stories of the other peoples of the Mesopotamian & Canaan areas. Why would there be any more creedence to The Flood than to a Flat earth.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Peg, posted 02-26-2009 10:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 02-27-2009 2:25 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 228 of 473 (500531)
02-27-2009 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by bluescat48
02-27-2009 12:10 AM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
bluescat48 writes:
If one wants to believe anything in the Bible, some other person can easily say it is simply an allegory or a fable or a myth, no different than the stories of the other peoples of the Mesopotamian & Canaan areas. Why would there be any more creedence to The Flood than to a Flat earth.
thats a fair point also and deserves to be considered. It could be off topic here... if it is, Admin is welcome to move my reply to a new thread
Metaphors highlight a similarity between two very different things. ie You are the light of the world. (Matt. 5:14) or The tongue is a fire. (Jas. 3:6) Similes do the same but not so directly as in 'you are 'like' this or that'.
That being said, the story of the flood in no way resembles a metaphor or a simile. Its a story about an event. Its characters are real people who lived and other writers make reference to and confirm the Genesis account. The family line of Noah is recorded and included in the bibles genealogical records.
its very unlikely that if Noah and the Flood was merely an illustration to impart some sort of lesson for life, the characters would be spoken of as real people and their family lines recorded. Those details would not need to be mentioned because they would be irrelevant.
Also why mention the instructions about the way the ark was to be built? Why would the writer mention things like the width and depth and height of the vessel, why would details about the windows and tar be included? It would not be important to do so.
Its the same with Adam and Eve, they are also mentioned by other writers as historical persons. They are included in the geological records.
At Matt. 19:4,5: [Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read that he who created them [Adam and Eve] from the beginning made them male and female'
The bible also has stories that were for teaching purposes and in these stories, names are usually left out as in the 'Good Samaritan' story. The man was never given a name. Unlike Noah & Adam his birth and family details are not mentioned in the story. This is why we know it to be a story for teaching purposes and not a real event.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2009 12:10 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 229 of 473 (500537)
02-27-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
02-26-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Re Flat Earth
ICANT, you have again wandered off into sci-fi fantasy land. The super-continent that you describe pre-dated humanity by hundreds of millions of years. For your preposterous nonsense to be true would require a lying god of appalling proportions.
The ancient Hebrews were not talking about space or other galaxies when they talked of heavens. They had no idea that such things even existed.
I find it sad that you are so willing to mutilate the texts that you claim to admire. I think that it is disrespectful to the authors.
Fortunately, you are alone in this particular fantasy.
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 222 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2009 5:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 11:11 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 236 by Peg, posted 02-28-2009 6:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 230 of 473 (500541)
02-27-2009 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by deadendhero
02-26-2009 7:14 PM


Re: Re Flat Earth
Hi there deadendhero and welcome to EvC Forum.
quote:
I'm also young so forgive any misspelling, I'm recovering from texting.
No problem. My spelling is not great either and my typing is diabolical. Spell-checkers can help a lot and make sure that your point gets across.
quote:
I would like to say that it is belived by many Christians that Heaven is infinite. So therefore, it can cover all of the known galaxy quite easily.
Perhaps. But are you really going to go along with ICANT's suggestion that the ancient Hebrews were writing about things that they did not know existed? That seems silly to me.
The description of God sitting above the Earth is far more intuitive when it is applied to a flat, disc-like Earth.
quote:
But, who said the bible must be taken literally? Even if the bible was "divinely" inspired by a supreme deity, he/she/it didn't write the bible. It was written by humans whoA) Tend to exaggerate, and (B) were not as educated as the modern day grade schooler.
They were not, I agree. And one of the things that they did not know was that the Earth was a sphere moving through space. How could they possibly have known? Divine revelation? If so, why did they not mention this new revelation in clear terms? Why did they continue to speak quite clearly about a Babylonian/Egyptian style cosmos?
As for literalness, I think that we can both agree that there are Bible passages that were intended to be taken literally and some that were never intended this way. The problem is working out, at a remove of thousands of years, which is which.
I am taking the passages that I have been quoting here as literal because they add up to a big picture of an internally consistent cosmos, they agree closely with the cosmology of neighbouring cultures and because they agree exactly with the explicitly literal Book of Enoch.
In the light of this, I see no reason to interpret them as metaphor.
quote:
Does anybody in this place take Herodotus literally too?
Well, yeah... in parts at least. I am no expert on Herodotus, but although some of his claims were pretty wacky, they were mostly intended to be believed. I am not suggesting that we interpret the Bible or Herodotus literally from start to finish; that would be absurd. What I am suggesting is that some Bible verses have to be interpreted as literal, even though they are now known to be mistaken.
It seems to me that Christians are too keen to explain away Biblical mistakes by hand-waving and saying "Well that's just metaphor!", when in fact the passage in question may have been interpreted as literal for centuries before the mistake was noticed. Take the immobility of the Earth. This is quite clear in the Bible and was interpreted as entirely literal right up until the revolution in thought brought about by Copernicus and Galileo. Of course this is an embarrassment to modern Christians keen to cling onto an inerrant Bible, so the verse must now be interpreted as metaphor.
It was never metaphor. It was intended as literal truth. It was mistaken, that's all. The thing to do is to simply admit the mistake and move on, not twist the Bible in ways it was never meant to be twisted.
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 225 by deadendhero, posted 02-26-2009 7:14 PM deadendhero has not replied

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


Message 231 of 473 (500542)
02-27-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Peg
02-26-2009 10:58 PM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
quote:
it could be a topic for a new thread and i'd most definitely be up for that. I think i could prove otherwise.
Sure, a thread on the topic of comparisons (or lack thereof) between Judaism/Christianity and the beliefs of their neighbours could be interesting.
quote:
Great. But tell me why the 'dome' cannot be taken in the same way...or the 'Four Corners' ... why would you choose to read these literally and not attribute them to being nothing more then a simile or an expression of speech.
Most obviously, the passages you quoted were clear similes. The references to the "vault of heaven" and the "four corners" are not. There is no "like" comparison being made, they are simply referred to as if they were real. Let's look at Revelation again;
Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.
The Revelator is describing what he saw. I know that we are talking about a vision, but the context is clear enough; he is describing what he saw in his vision. He is describing it in a visual context and what he saw were four angels, standing at the ends of the earth.
It is the mental image that is important here. I can quite easily picture something like what John might have seen, if we are talking about a flat earth. He saw a disc-like earth with four points at its edge, one for each cardinal direction. An angel stands at each.
Try as I might, I can't picture what he might have seen if he was describing a spherical Earth. Where were the East and west angels standing? It just makes no sense to me. Look also at Job;
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
If this were merely a metaphor, the obvious answer would be something like "No, but then neither did God. It's just a metaphor in the first place!". It is no use appealing to great deeds that God never actually did when exalting his glory. On another level, the metaphor of "hard as a molten mirror" is a completely inappropriate choice when describing a gaseous atmosphere. Even as a metaphor, it makes no sense at all when applied to the Earth as it actually is. It does however, make sense if it is describing a literal vault of heaven. The verse is saying "Has God not spread out the sky? (answer; yes he has) Has he not made the heaven as hard as metal? (answer; yes he has) Is that not impressive? (answer; yes, very) Isn't God just BLOODY BRILLIANT?" They are clearly hoping for the answer "Yes, he's great!". This argument for God would be far less persuasive if all his achievements were just allegories.
Another important point is that in the Jewish tradition, the literal/allegorical divide that we have been discussing simply does not exist. Any given passage can be interpreted from a literal viewpoint and an allegorical one. In some cases one view may be more stressed than the other. It is important to bear this in mind, because this is the tradition in which it was written (probably more true of the Old Testament than the New, but it still applies to both). Just because we can read an allegorical meaning into it does not mean that no literal meaning was intended.
Also, there's the similarities with 1 Enoch, but I'll come to that...
quote:
After all, people today still say 'the sun rises/sets' even though they know the sun does not move. We know this and yet still call it the way we see it...why could the writers not call it the way they see it?
I am arguing that they called it as they saw it. They saw it as flat! That's why they described in those terms.
You ask why I do not take it as idiomatic. Again, it is the context of the verses. Rev 7:1 does not make passing use of "four corners" as an idiom, but describes a visionary scene of an event taking place there. There is no idiom involved.
quote:
to the contrary, the bible does not say much about the cosmos & earth at all. The only detailed account we have about the earth is in Gen Chp 1 & 2 and a few pages in the book of Job. the Genesis account is very general about the creation of the planet.
A fair comment, but Genesis does get pretty busy making concrete claims about the cosmos. It is also far from general. It has a specific order of events, two specific orders in fact! Since the book of Genesis is entirely consistent with the flat earth model and even makes a good deal more sense when viewed this way, I say that the flat earth references, which are found in many books, should be taken as literally as we take Genesis. If you want to call the whole creation myth part of the book as allegory, then you have a case for treating the flat earth material the same way. If you insist upon the first few chapters describing real events, you have to take other passages just as literally.
quote:
thats not true. As i said above, today we use the same imagery when talking about sunrise and sunset. We still say that the sun will rise at 6.20am and set at some time in the evening. Why do we use such language if we know that the sun does not set or rise.
Its nothing more then a figure of speech and we know that...the hebrews used the same figures of speech.
Perhaps I overstated somewhat. However, I have already argued above that an idiomatic interpretation simply cannot be usefully applied to many of the verses in question. Job 37:18 for example simply doesn't work when viewed this way. How is Matthew 4:8 or Daniel 4:10-11 idiomatic? I see no idioms. If not literal such verses become far less impressive and , since they are clearly meant to impress us, I find this interpretation unconvincing.
There are simply too many verses, providing too internally consistent a picture of a Babylonian/Egyptian/Enochian style cosmos to ignore. Alone, any one or two of them might pass as metaphor. Together, they add up to a big picture.
quote:
the point was that the bible calls both 'earth' and 'people' the world. It uses the same term for both. Showing once again that the language of the bible is often metaphorical or symbolic.
As I said, just because it can be metaphorical, does not mean that it is not also literal. It makes the most sense to view these verses as literal. To insist that they are purely metaphorical weakens their meaning and requires some very stretched and tenuous metaphors.
quote:
Jude may simply have quoted a common source such as an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation. Its never been proved that he actually quoted from that book,
Don't be absurd, the passage explicitly identifies the inner quote as being from Enoch and then goes on to directly quote the Book of Enoch! Nothing could be clearer.
quote:
not that it makes any difference to me if he did because there are other teachings in there that prove that it is not an inspired book.
It is irrelevant to me whether you consider it inspired or not. I consider that to be an artificial and wholly arbitrary distinction. Jude clearly thought it was inspired though. What's more, there are unpalatable teachings and simple errors in fact throughout the Bible. If the presence of such material is sufficient to damn 1 Enoch, it is a double standard to refuse to apply it to the canon.
quote:
The ethiopian church's also have the ark of the covenant in 3 or 4 sacred locations under guard... im not sure how reliable they are lol.
Hah! I'm with you there actually. It's beyond me that anyone today could consider rubbish such as 1 Enoch as being true. Of course, I feel that way about Genesis as well. That's not important here though. What is important is that the author of Jude thought highly enough of 1 Enoch to quote it as prophecy. That demonstrates that it must have had currency at the time.
quote:
thats a fine point.
Although its based on the assumption that the jews did think in terms of flat earth though.
No it's not. Imagine that the Jewish people knew of a spherical earth from the first composition of the Old Testament to the present day. The problem arises when we see that the author(s) of 1 Enoch clearly did believe in a flat earth. Why the disconnect? If the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth, why would Enoch read the way it does? Why would it be taken seriously? Ever? By anyone, let alone the author(s) of Jude? To a spherical Earth-savvy people, the Book of Enoch would have been a joke, as it is today, yet it was popular enough at the time of Jude to be quoted as inspired scripture. Does this not seem strange to you?
The simple truth of the matter is that the Bible's scattered comments on cosmology are completely consistent with 1 Enoch. I asked Black this before, I will now ask you; are there any Bible verses that explicitly contradict an Enochian cosmology?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Composed full response.

"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 226 by Peg, posted 02-26-2009 10:58 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Peg, posted 02-28-2009 7:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 232 of 473 (500567)
02-27-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Granny Magda
02-27-2009 6:00 AM


Re Flat Earth
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes:
ICANT, you have again wandered off into sci-fi fantasy land. The super-continent that you describe pre-dated humanity by hundreds of millions of years. For your preposterous nonsense to be true would require a lying god of appalling proportions.
Do you have proof that man did or did not exist on planet earth prior to 250 million years ago?
Do you have proof that the super continent did or did not exist 10k years ago?
I know according to science it took millions of years to move from the super continent to where it is today.
I also know the super continent is expected to exist again in the future. (that is the one my avatar comes from).
Now if God is in control and He created this universe, why would it be impossible for Him to take everything from the shape of my avatar and place it where it is today in a nano second?
He spoke the whole universe and earth into existence in Genesis 1:1 in a nano second.
Now to a discussion of what the texts say.
1..Does Genesis 1:9 tell us the waters was in one place and the land in one place? yes/no
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
2..Does Genesis 1:10 tell us God called the land Earth and the water Seas? yes/no
The translators supplied the s on Sea as the original word is singular.
Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
3..Would it be possible for someone or an angel to stand on the four corners (North, South, East and West) of the earth as pictured in my avatar? yes/no
4..Does Genesis 11:8 tell us the Lord scattered them abroad on the face of the earth (land mass in Genesis 1:10)? yes/no
Genesis Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
5..Does Genesis 10:25 and 1Chronicles 1:19 tell us the earth (land mass in Genesis 1:10) was divided in the days of Peleg? yes/no
Genesis Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
1Ch 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.
Since the answer to all those Questions is yes, why do you say I am talking Si-Fi?
Why do you say I am mutilating the texts?
Take the texts and show me where they do not say what they say, or what you think I say they say that they do not say.
Granny Magda writes:
The ancient Hebrews were not talking about space or other galaxies when they talked of heavens. They had no idea that such things even existed.
Why do they have to understand what they are writing if they are writing by the inspiration of God?
Moses spent 40 days with God and I have no way of knowing what God showed to him in that time so he may very well have known exactly what he was writing about.
Paul did when he was writing about the third heaven and I agree with his assessment of it.
Fortunately, you are alone in this particular fantasy.
Asserts Granny Magda.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2009 6:00 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-27-2009 4:19 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 233 of 473 (500572)
02-27-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
02-26-2009 5:03 PM


Re Flat Earth
Hello ICANT,
ICANT says, "Granny I agree with thingamabob's message 115,"
Thanks, I got no idea what I am talking about I was just reading what the Bible says.
thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2009 5:03 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 234 of 473 (500592)
02-27-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ICANT
02-27-2009 11:11 AM


Re: Re Flat Earth
Why do they have to understand what they are writing if they are writing by the inspiration of God?
Keep sinking the ship..
Of what use are inspired writings of God if no one understands them? What is the purpose of such writings?
Oh I forgot, you are the reason they were written, as you are the only one with your interpretation on the face of the planet..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 11:11 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Chiroptera, posted 02-27-2009 5:13 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 473 (500594)
02-27-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by shalamabobbi
02-27-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Re Flat Earth
Of what use are inspired writings of God if no one understands them? What is the purpose of such writings?
Is ICANT Pentacostal? This would mesh pretty well with glossolalia.

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 234 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-27-2009 4:19 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

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


Message 236 of 473 (500621)
02-28-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Granny Magda
02-27-2009 6:00 AM


Re: Re Flat Earth
GM writes:
The ancient Hebrews were not talking about space or other galaxies when they talked of heavens. They had no idea that such things even existed.
Job 38:31'Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki′mah constellation, Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke′sil constellation? 32Can you bring forth the Maz′zaroth constellation in its appointed time? And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them? 33Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens, Or could you put its authority in the earth?'
The Ash constellation. Heb., ‛Ash. Thought by some to be the constellation Ursa Major (Great Bear).
The Kesil constellation. Heb., Kesil′. Thought by some to be the constellation Orion.
And the Kimah constellation. Heb., weKhimah′. Thought by some to be the Pleiades stars in the Taurus constellation.
The One making the Pleiades and Hesperus and Arcturus and the storerooms of the South, LXX; Vg, who makes Arcturus and Orion and the Hyades and the interior rooms of the South. The interior rooms of the South are understood to be the constellations below the equator, in the southern hemisphere.
Amos 5: 8'The Maker of the Ki′mah constellation and the Ke′sil constellation, and the One turning deep shadow into the morning itself...;
Isaiah 13:10'For the very stars of the heavens and their constellations of Ke′sil...'
the hebrew OT seems to imply that they did know something about the galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2009 6:00 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 02-28-2009 7:13 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 237 of 473 (500622)
02-28-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Peg
02-28-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Re Flat Earth
quote:
the hebrew OT seems to imply that they did know something about the galaxy
The quotes you present do no such thing. They mention stars yes. They mention constellations. They even mention them by name. But I wasn't talking about their knowledge of "the galaxy". I said that they had no knowledge of "galaxies", plural. If I know the way down the road to the post office, I have knowledge of the galaxy, since the post office is in the Milky Way galaxy. I wasn't talking about that though, I was talking about knowledge of other galaxies, of our place within the wider galaxy and the empty space in between galaxies.
Where does the OT mention galaxies? Where does it mention space, not the objects in space, but empty space itself? Where does it distinguish between a star and a galaxy?
Where does it show understanding of the fact that "constellations" are mere artefacts of our view of the stars from Earth? There is no such object as the Orion constellation. The stars that form it are light years apart. They have no connection to each other. Talking about it being bound by cords is an absolute absurdity. Talking about it as a single entity is a nonsense.
Not a single verse you have shown me here contradicts the model of the stars being relatively-small objects, fixed to the vault of heaven. In fact the obvious errors in the way these constellations are described is further evidence that the OT authors had a very poor understanding of the cosmos. They could see and recognise stars, but they had no understanding of what they actually were.
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 236 by Peg, posted 02-28-2009 6:37 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2009 4:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


Message 238 of 473 (500624)
02-28-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Granny Magda
02-27-2009 6:37 AM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
GM writes:
The Revelator is describing what he saw. I know that we are talking about a vision, but the context is clear enough; he is describing what he saw in his vision. He is describing it in a visual context and what he saw were four angels, standing at the ends of the earth.
Wind is something that he would not have seen though...no one can see wind, so in this verse wind is obviously representative of something else.
It would make no sense that he saw 4 literal corners, but no literal wind and yet say that the saw both...therefore neither of them can be literal. Both must be symbolic or metaphorical.
GM writes:
If this were merely a metaphor, the obvious answer would be something like "No, but then neither did God. It's just a metaphor in the first place!". It is no use appealing to great deeds that God never actually did when exalting his glory. On another level, the metaphor of "hard as a molten mirror" is a completely inappropriate choice when describing a gaseous atmosphere. Even as a metaphor, it makes no sense at all when applied to the Earth as it actually is. It does however, make sense if it is describing a literal vault of heaven.
In this verse it is asked if Job could 'beat out' [tarqi′a‛] the skies hard like a molten mirror?
When you look at the Hebrew words used, you see that its not a literal beating out of some solid celestial vault becasue the word 'skies' here comes from a word (sha`chaq) also rendered 'film of dust' or 'clouds' (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror which gives off a bright reflection.
GM writes:
Don't be absurd, the passage explicitly identifies the inner quote as being from Enoch and then goes on to directly quote the Book of Enoch! Nothing could be clearer.
well the quote in Jude says that 'Enoch prophecied concerning all the ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way'
Enoch was a real person, but the Apocrypral book of Enoch was not written by him. It was written in 2-1BCE. This means that the knowlege of Enochs prophecies was most likely handed down thru oral tradition as i said, otherwise any made up story coming on the scene would have been laughed out of town. The jews are proud and stubborn race, they are today and were back then...there is no way they would have adopted new teachings. The only answer is that they knew of enochs prophecies via word of mouth tradition. This means that Jude may not have quoted from the book at all but rather relayed information that his audience were already familiar with.
GM writes:
The simple truth of the matter is that the Bible's scattered comments on cosmology are completely consistent with 1 Enoch. I asked Black this before, I will now ask you; are there any Bible verses that explicitly contradict an Enochian cosmology?
From Wiki 'the Astronomical book describes a Solar calendar that was later described also in the Book of Jubilees and that was used by the Dead Sea sect. The use of this calendar made impossible to celebrate the feasts in the same days of the Temple of Jerusalem.'
This means that the writer of Enoch was not part of the general jewish religious system...he was a follower (perhaps a teacher) of the Dead Sea Sect. Attempting to attribute the Enoch book to jewish scripture is like trying to tie the mormons and the catholic church together as one... it cannot be done. They are uniquely different.
from this site ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
quote:
Scholars refer to three kinds of writings represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). A little under 1/3 is made up of biblical texts, containing all the books of the Hebrew Bible in whole or in part, except for Esther. About 1/4 are writings (known and unknown) which were part of the Jewish literary heritage that remained outside the Bible, such as apocryphal books like the Testament of Levi. A third are writings which pertain to the specific beliefs, practices, and membership requirements of a Jewish sect, headquartered at Qumran. An eighth of the fragments are unidentified. Many documents are found in multiple copies, with Isaiah and Psalms appearing most frequently.
What time period do they cover?
None of the Scrolls are dated. But scholars date them using the methods of (1) internal historical references (which are rare) (2) paleography (the science of identifying script types) and (3) carbon 14. They range from the middle of the second century BCE to around 70 CE. According to carbon 14 dating, for example, The Thanksgiving Psalms are dated between 21 BCE to 61 CE.
What Did the Sect Believe?
The Dead Sea Sect believed that it was the last remnant faithful to the covenant between God and Israel, and that their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, gave "the last interpretation of the law" on all aspects of life. The group believed that only its own members were among God's elect and were united already on earth with the angels of heaven.
very interesting reading there. And so my conclusion to your question is that because the book of Enoch was written by a break away of the Jewish religion, its flat earth teachings cannot be connected in anyway with the bible.
They may have been influenced by greek philosophy. They may also have carried over some of the oral teachings of the jewish system and so the information about the historical person 'Enoch' could very well have been common knowlege among the jews and if so explains why Jude could rightly use it in his writing. Keeping in mind that the book of Enoch was written centuries after the rest of the bible, Jude may not have been copying from the Dead Sea Sect at all...they were likely copying from the jewish religion.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Granny Magda, posted 02-27-2009 6:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-28-2009 6:38 PM Peg has replied
 Message 241 by Granny Magda, posted 03-01-2009 8:47 AM Peg has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 239 of 473 (500635)
02-28-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Granny Magda
02-28-2009 7:13 AM


Re Flat Earth
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes:
There is no such object as the Orion constellation.
Really.
Orion (pronounced /ɒˈraɪən/), often referred to as "The Hunter," is a prominent constellation — one of the largest, most conspicuous, and most recognizable in the night sky.
Source
Why don't you edit wikipedia to display the proper way to approach Orion then?
Granny Magda writes:
Where does the OT mention galaxies? Where does it mention space, not the objects in space, but empty space itself? Where does it distinguish between a star and a galaxy?
I did not know there was such a thing as "empty space".
Let see.
The Heaven in Genesis 1:1 is the expanse, sky, space or what ever you want to call it that can be seen with the natural eye and everything beyond. Including what we cannot see with our most powerful telescopes.
The Heaven in Genesis 1:1 is not a light producing object (refereed to by us as stars), a galaxy, a wanderer (planets) or a constellation.
But on the other hand constellations, wanderer's and objects that produce light make up galaxies which reside in the heavens.
The Bible records about the heavens being stretched out.
It records about our present atmosphere, heaven being created in the heaven that was created in Genesis 1:1.
The Bible records about the constellations in and out of our system.
The Bible records about the heavens and earth having a beginning.
When does Science tell us of these things?
Plato didn't.
Aristotle didn't.
Galileo didn't. He did study the Milky Way, and discovered many things in it.
So when did science know anything existed outside the Milky Way?
According to information found Here it was 1924.
The information has been in the Bible over 2300 years.
How long has Science known the universe was expanding?
According to the information found Here the 1920's.
The Bible records it over 2300 years ago in Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
I have no idea why the translators made the statement, "have stretched out the heavens,".
The Hebrew word is translated as such.
The meaning of which is, "to stretch out, extend", which would give it an ongoing process.
There is no reason for have or past tense to be employed.
It would represent the older texts better if this: ", even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
Read: "my hands stretch out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
So you stand on your stump and proclaim your gospel all you want.
The Bible writers did know many things, or at least wrote many things about the heavens before science was born.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Granny Magda, posted 02-28-2009 7:13 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Granny Magda, posted 03-01-2009 9:00 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 240 of 473 (500643)
02-28-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Peg
02-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: another verse on height of heavens
And so my conclusion to your question is that because the book of Enoch was written by a break away of the Jewish religion, its flat earth teachings cannot be connected in anyway with the bible.
But are it's flat earth teachings the point upon which they broke away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Peg, posted 02-28-2009 7:27 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Peg, posted 03-02-2009 3:37 AM shalamabobbi 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