Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 16 of 243 (5702)
02-27-2002 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LudvanB
02-27-2002 9:46 AM


I thought this thread was a joke at first. Apparently not! Oh well, here goes...
quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:Actually,the text of the Bible were writen well before the dark ages,whom' occured between the 12th and 16th century.
I think you'll find the 12th to 16th century comprise what historians often refer to as the High, Late and Post-Medieval periods. The dark ages are much earlier, roughly from the fall of the Roman empire to the start of the Carolingian period. Oh and they were a European period - the Bible is Middle Eastern in origin, and they were having a jolly enlightened time while Europeans were "in the dark."
Still, I'm sure the rest of your historical analysis is right. Let's see ... [b] [QUOTE]Most of the ancient textament was writen 300 BC and the new testament was writen a mere few century after the death of christ. The many parts of the Bible were ASSEMBLED in the middle ages and TRANSLATED from the hebrew and greek to latin and then english[/b][/QUOTE]
300 BC was busy year for someone! The Bible was assembled in the Middle Ages? This must have been awkward for Bishop Ulfilas of the Goths who translated the Old and New Testaments in the 4th century, or Mesrob who completed his Armenian translation in the first decade of the 5th century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 9:46 AM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 1:28 PM Mister Pamboli has replied
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 9:29 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 243 (5704)
02-27-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mister Pamboli
02-27-2002 12:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I thought this thread was a joke at first. Apparently not! Oh well, here goes...
quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:Actually,the text of the Bible were writen well before the dark ages,whom' occured between the 12th and 16th century.
I think you'll find the 12th to 16th century comprise what historians often refer to as the High, Late and Post-Medieval periods. The dark ages are much earlier, roughly from the fall of the Roman empire to the start of the Carolingian period. Oh and they were a European period - the Bible is Middle Eastern in origin, and they were having a jolly enlightened time while Europeans were "in the dark."
Still, I'm sure the rest of your historical analysis is right. Let's see ... [b] [QUOTE]Most of the ancient textament was writen 300 BC and the new testament was writen a mere few century after the death of christ. The many parts of the Bible were ASSEMBLED in the middle ages and TRANSLATED from the hebrew and greek to latin and then english[/b][/QUOTE]
300 BC was busy year for someone! The Bible was assembled in the Middle Ages? This must have been awkward for Bishop Ulfilas of the Goths who translated the Old and New Testaments in the 4th century, or Mesrob who completed his Armenian translation in the first decade of the 5th century.

Mr Pamboli. I thank you for correcting some of my historical innacuracies,although i would say that most historians would readily consider the spanish inquisition as the dark ages. I was apparantly given some bad info on when the Bible was actually writen...You did not,however,adress my initial post itself i noticed. I was not joking when i QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE that the earth is described as a FLAT,IMMOBILE WORLD. Would you care to comment on that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 12:00 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 1:44 PM LudvanB has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 18 of 243 (5705)
02-27-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LudvanB
02-27-2002 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
i would say that most historians would readily consider the spanish inquisition as the dark ages.
I think you are confusing a casual sense of "dark ages" meaning "evil times" with the historical "Dark Ages" which was a term much used for historians for the period between the end of the Roman Empire (when learning, government and the rule of law were pretty much the norm) and the revival of learning under Charlemagne.[b] [QUOTE]I was apparantly given some bad info on when the Bible was actually writen...You did not,however,adress my initial post itself i noticed. I was not joking when i QUOTED DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE that the earth is described as a FLAT,IMMOBILE WORLD. Would you care to comment on that?[/b][/QUOTE]
You should read some material on the development of the Bible: it is particularly useful for demolishing fundamentalist views. Here's a good link to get started, which is full of historical detail, if a little dogmatic: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
The reason I didn't respond to your original quotes is because I don't think it is a good idea to confront fundamentalism with apparent contradictions in detail - it is playing their game. Better to confront why fundamentalism is untenable in principle, rather than mistaken in trifling details. Nice try, though!
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 1:28 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 4:02 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 243 (5714)
02-27-2002 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mister Pamboli
02-27-2002 1:44 PM


And i firmly believe that confronting fundamentalism can only be done be constantly demonstrating how silly it is by showing exemples of what they recognize as fundamental truths as complete nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 1:44 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 243 (5715)
02-27-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudvanB
02-26-2002 2:37 PM


but do seeds fall to this flat earth fall to the sun on purpose or do seeds fall to a moving Earth (to Sun? Moon? Asteriod? Earth? etc??) By projecting the Copernican question to matter from mind Freud is removed from history. Wa LA. (since earth falls to sun seeds can fall to sun by falling under gravity provided they are adapted to do this.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudvanB, posted 02-26-2002 2:37 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 243 (5720)
02-27-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
02-27-2002 9:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Yeah bud circle not globe, sphere, etc (3D) but circle (2D)....
If they meant sphere they should not have said circle

John Paul:
Enough of this nonsense. From page 97-98 of Refuting Evolution:
quote:
Like much secular literature, Teaching about
Evolution
presents a rather simplistic and even
misleading account of the Galileo controversy. It was
certainly not a simple case of science versus the Church.
However, Teaching about Evolution, to
its credit, does not promote the common skeptical canard
that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat and that this
belief was widespread in medieval times.
Isaiah 40:22 refers to the circle of the earth, or in
the Italian translation, globo. The Hebrew is khug
= sphericity or roundness. Even if the translation circle
is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space
to him, the spherical earth would have appeared circular
regardless of which direction he viewed it from.
Also, Jesus Christ’s prophecy about His second
coming in Luke 17:34—36 implies that He knew about a
round earth. He stated that different people on earth
would experience night, morning, and midday at the
same time. This is possible because the spheroidal earth
is rotating on its axis, which allows the sun to shine on
different areas at different times. But it would be an inconceivable prophecy if Christ believed in a flat earth.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 9:57 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LudvanB, posted 02-27-2002 5:02 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 23 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 5:15 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 76 by ebabinski, posted 07-30-2002 3:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 77 by ebabinski, posted 07-30-2002 4:07 PM John Paul has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 243 (5722)
02-27-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John Paul
02-27-2002 4:50 PM


Yes but Neil Amrstrong could see the earth rotate on its axis and would never conclude that the earth was anything but a Sphere...Khud means circle,not spherity. And this does not in any way adress the quotations i linked to,which not only describe the earth as something that can be observed from a montain top in its entirety but as something that is completely IMMOBILE,thus,NOT rotating on its Axis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 4:50 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2002 10:58 AM LudvanB has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 243 (5725)
02-27-2002 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John Paul
02-27-2002 4:50 PM


Interesting I recently saw something to the effect that the hebrew for sphere was derived from the babylonian for skull.... It began with a g and definately wasn`t "khug" which is circle......
I`ll have to try and find it....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 4:50 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2002 1:44 AM joz has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 24 of 243 (5769)
02-28-2002 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by joz
02-27-2002 5:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Interesting I recently saw something to the effect that the hebrew for sphere was derived from the babylonian for skull.... It began with a g and definately wasn`t "khug" which is circle......
I`ll have to try and find it....

That was by me. There are two words - "gulgoleth", which is translated as head or skull, and "gullah", which is translated as pommel or bowl. (a pommel is the knob on the handle of a sword)
These are derived from the Babylonian gulgulla. They used this word to describe a style of water jug.
------------
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 5:15 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2002 11:03 AM doctrbill has not replied
 Message 36 by joz, posted 02-28-2002 11:18 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
RetroCrono
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 243 (5770)
02-28-2002 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by gene90
02-27-2002 9:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
RC,
Both the Sun and the Moon appear to rise out of the ground in the east, cross the sky, and return to the ground in the west. That is why they mentioned both the Sun and the Moon staying still. Also remember that the passage refers to both bodies moving, not the Earth.

You completely missed the point I was making. Sorry for not explaining it clear enough. But here goes, I'll try again.
Basically, if the earth was the center of the universe than both the sun and the moon would rotate seperately around the earth (the center). Right? However, they didn't just say the sun stood still, the moon stopped at the same time. Which leads me to believe that the sun and the moon didn't stop, but the other way around, the earth stoppped. Or better still, slowed down to half of its pace to turn one day into two days. Get what I mean?
What your claiming doesn't fit with what's written (or from what I can understand). If this is just a myth like I'm sure your supposing. Than why the heck did they say the moon stopped too? The whole point was to say that one day went for two days, or daylight for two days. If they believed the earth was the center of the universe and everything rotated around it, wouldn't they just have said the sun stayed still, to signify the light source remained? Can you say they got it right when describing such an event (myth or not) from an observational stand point.
Regards,
RC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-27-2002 9:10 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 02-28-2002 9:14 AM RetroCrono has not replied
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2002 11:17 AM RetroCrono has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 26 of 243 (5787)
02-28-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RetroCrono
02-28-2002 2:38 AM


RC,
If they believed in a heliocentric model, don't you think they would say that the Earth stopped moving, rather than saying that both the Sun and Moon stopped?
Also don't you think the Sun and Moon both stopping would be as likely to be a poetic device rather than an observation? Do you feel the passage would have the same effect as, "The Sun stopped but the Moon kept moving..."
[QUOTE][b]If they believed the earwh was the center of the universe and everything rotated around it, wouldn't they just have said the sun stayed still, to signify the light source remained?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
But they view the Moon as a second light source. Also the passage distinctly states that the Sun and Moon stood still, not the Earth.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RetroCrono, posted 02-28-2002 2:38 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2002 9:48 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 27 of 243 (5789)
02-28-2002 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mister Pamboli
02-27-2002 12:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I thought this thread was a joke at first. Apparently not! Oh well, here goes...
quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:Actually,the text of the Bible were writen well before the dark ages,whom' occured between the 12th and 16th century.
I think you'll find the 12th to 16th century comprise what historians often refer to as the High, Late and Post-Medieval periods. The dark ages are much earlier, roughly from the fall of the Roman empire to the start of the Carolingian period. Oh and they were a European period - the Bible is Middle Eastern in origin, and they were having a jolly enlightened time while Europeans were "in the dark."
Still, I'm sure the rest of your historical analysis is right. Let's see ... [b] [QUOTE]Most of the ancient textament was writen 300 BC and the new testament was writen a mere few century after the death of christ. The many parts of the Bible were ASSEMBLED in the middle ages and TRANSLATED from the hebrew and greek to latin and then english[/b][/QUOTE]
300 BC was busy year for someone! The Bible was assembled in the Middle Ages? This must have been awkward for Bishop Ulfilas of the Goths who translated the Old and New Testaments in the 4th century, or Mesrob who completed his Armenian translation in the first decade of the 5th century.

Does anyone read here or do they just skim ?
This started because LudvanB mis-read or mis-understood a comment
that I made that::
The idea of a flat earth arose during the dark ages (or possibly
a medieval era), and that PRIOR to that, during the time the
bible was written, people knew that the earth was NOT FLAT!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 12:00 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LudvanB, posted 02-28-2002 10:00 AM Peter has not replied
 Message 30 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2002 10:18 AM Peter has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 28 of 243 (5791)
02-28-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by gene90
02-28-2002 9:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
... don't you think the Sun and Moon both stopping would be as likely to be a poetic device rather than an observation?
The Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition, contains this footnote for Joshua 10:13 -
"Lines from a popular song, appealing for time to secure victory, are here adapted to the author's purpose."
Another example of such poetic fancy may be found at Isaiah 24:19, 23.
"The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved ... it shall fall, and not rise again. ... the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed ..."
The passage in Joshua reminds me of a 1950's Sci. Fi. movie titled:
"The Day the Earth Stood Still".
[ i.e. Ordinary life came to a halt.]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 02-28-2002 9:14 AM gene90 has not replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 243 (5792)
02-28-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peter
02-28-2002 9:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
The idea of a flat earth arose during the dark ages (or possibly
a medieval era), and that PRIOR to that, during the time the
bible was written, people knew that the earth was NOT FLAT!!!

If the hebrew who originaly authored the Bible KNEW that the earth was a huge ball of dirt hurtling through space at a wopping 29.8 km/s,they certainly did not make this knowledge self evident in their writings. Only on a small flat earth could there be a mountain that would allow one to see the WHOLE WORLD. And when they say the earth cannot be moved,i dont see how else this can be interpreted with any level of credibility

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 9:29 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 02-28-2002 10:22 AM LudvanB has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 30 of 243 (5796)
02-28-2002 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peter
02-28-2002 9:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
The idea of a flat earth arose during the dark ages (or possibly
a medieval era), and that PRIOR to that, during the time the
bible was written, people knew that the earth was NOT FLAT!!!

The idea of a spherical earth was endorsed by Aristotle circa 300 BC. The Flat Earth concept goes back to the earliest writings of the Sumerian sages, circa 2500 BC.
------------------
Bachelor of Arts - Loma Linda University
Major - Biology; Minor - Religion
Anatomy and Physiology - LLU School of Medicine
Embryology - La Sierra University
Biblical languages - Pacific Union College
Bible doctrines - Walla Walla College

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 9:29 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Peter, posted 03-01-2002 7:09 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024