|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible's Flat Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5348 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
i have no objection except...
Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning. How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 4214 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning. How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands? Which has nothing to do with the imagined flatness of the earth in ancient times. You are going off-topic everywhere as soon as you get challenged. This isn't going to be tolerated, you are in danger of being persecuted for your belief that you can just change the subject whenever things go tight for you. Hopefully the ACLU will step in and get you some professional help. In the meantime, there's a nice thread that's been set up for you where you can do this galloping about from point to point to your heart's content. Please join us as we review all your points all together in Message 1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
i have no objection except... Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning. How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands? Has it not occurred to you that since you have never bothered to read Darwin's book, this renders you unable either to state under which conditions it can be understood or to criticize his reasoning? Anyway, I believe that we were discussing the real deficiencies of the real content of the Bible, not the imaginary deficiencies of the imaginary content of the Origin of Species. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5348 days) Posts: 28 Joined: |
yes, i have read part of the book. have you?
[b][color=red]I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein[/color=red][/b]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
yes, i have read part of the book. The title?
have you? I've read all of it, which is why I know what's in it and you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 357 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi HN,
yes, i have read part of the book. Wow. Part of the book. Well colour me impressed. Did you read the title of this thread? It's a lot shorter than the Origin. It's "The Bible's Flat Earth", so unless you have anything to add to that particular discussion, I would appreciate it if you could quit cluttering up the thread with off-topic trivia. Thank you. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3776 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined:
|
quote:This is one of those occasions that capitalization makes a difference. Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground. Dr. Bill's assertion is that Bible writers didn't refer to the planet when using the various Hebrew words translated as earth and world. They were describing their view of their surroundings. A flat planet never existed as far as I know, but "flat" ground does exist. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.
That is how I do it, and that is how I understand that it is to be done today but I am unclear on exactly what the thinking may have been in years past. I am quite sure, for example, that translators of the King James Version (1611) had a different system from those who revised it in 1769. In 1611, the opening line of Genesis reads: quote:In 1769 it was given to read: quote: In both the 1611 and 1769 editions, the word earth is capitalized at verses 10 and 11 but in verse 12 it is not.quote:Modern translations tend to follow the precedents set by the KJV in 1769 but there are exceptions. The New International Version and the New Living Translation, which are both popular with "evangelicals," avoid the issue here by eliminating "earth" from these verses and going with the word "land" instead. Then there's The Message, a shameless paraphrase popular among the more liberal "fundamentalists." In that version, the word "earth" is capitalized in every one of its 15 instances in the first chapter of Genesis. This reminds me of how the German language handles nouns but the MSG does not do so consistently throughout the Bible. Needless to say, perhaps, but its creators seem to feel free to capitalize it wherever they believe it might work to good effect for them. To put this another way: They capitalize when they wish the reader to imagine a global or planetary scope. Thoughts anyone?
A flat planet never existed as far as I know, but "flat" ground does exist.
An excellent point my friend. ![]() Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hawkes nightmare Junior Member (Idle past 5348 days) Posts: 28 Joined:
|
this is debate about a flat earth, not english class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 5127 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Care to contribute then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4508 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Yes it is about a flat earth. The problem is that most of the biblical references are being put in the following:
People are trying to read the Bible through 21st century eyes, rather than through the eyes of the bronze age men who first told these stories. Earth is earth. To the man who told these stories the entire Earth was simply earth & water, not a planet. Whether one translates it as earth or land is irrelevant. They didn't know what the earth was.Try reading what is there rather that what someone else says is there. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
hERICtic writes: there are hundreds if not thousands of contradiction and errors int the Bible. Hi Eric. Again, welcome. Eric, haven't you been told thousands of times not to exaggerate? ![]() BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4835 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
Hi Buz.
Exaggerate? Not at all! I stand behind my claim! The problem of course is that an apologist doesn't know what a contradiction is! ![]() Can you give me an example of a contradiction? Make one up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 4180 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.
That is how I do it, and that is how I understand that it is to be done today but I am unclear on exactly what the thinking may have been in years past. I am quite sure, for example, that translators of the King James Version (1611) had a different system from those who revised it in 1769. In 1611, the opening line of Genesis reads: quote:In 1769 it was given to read: quote: In both the 1611 and 1769 editions, the word earth is capitalized at verses 10 and 11 but in verse 12 it is not. I'm not sure, but this line of reasoning makes sense: in 1611 (well, before then too), Earth meant "the dry bits where we can walk and the places that hold the seas" - the Earth was distinct from Heaven, hence they capitalized it the same way some capitalize Him and everything He does when talking about God or Jesus. But in 1769, they'd discovered that the Earth was a planet, hence had a name, hence it was called the Earth - and capitalized as such. And so now, the word "earth" in Genesis could no longer be capitalized because it was not referring to planet Earth and never had been and must change from Earth to earth to reflect this - the people who translated and were responsible for the bible being very dilligent about not lying through their teeth to prove a point. The biblical world was the waters above, the waters below, the heavens and the earth - and the earth was just "ground". The planet Earth was named Earth (and the word capitalized) because of the bible, not the other way around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 3083 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
greyseal writes: ... in 1769, they'd discovered that the Earth was a planet, hence had a name, hence it was called the Earth - and capitalized as such. And so now, the word "earth" in Genesis could no longer be capitalized because it was not referring to planet Earth and never had been and must change from Earth to earth to reflect this - That's an interesting idea but doesn't seem to fit the case. In fact, while the word "earth" is no longer capitalized at Genesis 1:1 (1769 edition); it continues to be capitalized at Genesis 1:10. There appears to be no textual clue as the nature of "earth" at Genesis 1:1, unless one takes it to be the same earth as that of Genesis 1:10. The "Earth" of Genesis 1:10 does in fact provide a textual clue as to its nature. That verse appears to define the term as a "dry" place and contrasts its dryness with the wetness by which it is surrounded.
quote: This verse, with "earth" capitalized, might serve to illustrate your point regarding the significance of capitalization, i.e. that it indicates a planetary status; except, unhappily for your theory, the "Earth" in this case is the "dry" place which appeared in the water when the water had been pulled from off it; gathered together into a pool (i.e. "one place"). Sounds very much like how "dry land" appears when the tide goes out. Doesn't sound at all like a planet which "appears" in the ocean.
quote: In both of these cases, and as otherwise evidenced numerous times throughout the Scriptures, Earth and Sea are never lumped together as if they were parts of a greater whole called "earth" but are alway mentioned discreetly, as if they were wholly separate realities. Consider the angel who: quote: Theology is the science of Dominion. - - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025