Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 6:22 PM
113 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 107 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,531 Year: 3,568/19,786 Month: 563/1,087 Week: 153/212 Day: 20/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery - The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only)
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1744 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 16 of 22 (635720)
10-01-2011 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wollysaurus
09-30-2011 11:24 PM


Re: A flat earth
Sorry, couldn't resist

quote:
Spherical Earth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

Medieval artistic representation of a spherical Earth - with compartments representing earth, air, and water (c. 1400).The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The Hellenistic paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[2][3][4][5]


See those tiny numbers in brackets end of setences referring to references? Look below at the dates they represent - they are conjectures and opinions made 1000's of years later. I'd appreciate any hard copy proof of any such greek writings older than the Hebrew or pre-300 BCE. Take your time - no hurry.

quote:

References1.^ Dicks, D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72–198. ISBN 9780801405617.
2.^ a b Continuation into Roman and medieval thought: Reinhard Krüger: "Materialien und Dokumente zur mittelalterlichen Erdkugeltheorie von der Spätantike bis zur Kolumbusfahrt (1492)"
3.^ a b Direct adoption of the Greek concept by Islam: Ragep, F. Jamil: "Astronomy", in: Krämer, Gudrun (ed.) et al.: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, Brill 2010, without page numbers
4.^ a b Direct adoption by India: D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (554f.); Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN0-415-96930-1, p. 463



This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-30-2011 11:24 PM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AdminChuck, posted 10-01-2011 2:23 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 21 by caffeine, posted 10-03-2011 6:02 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
AdminChuck
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 22 (635728)
10-01-2011 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by IamJoseph
10-01-2011 12:31 AM


Last Warning
Ya know, if I don't say anything I look like im being a bias moderator.

Message 9

Message 13

Read those messages again. You were asked nicely twice. No scolding, no warnings even.

It's not easy holding back while other people comment about you I know. Try man, try.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2011 12:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 18 of 22 (635733)
10-01-2011 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wollysaurus
09-30-2011 1:44 PM


Re: Bible Study
quote:
So, this would bring in the historicity of Moses (and the Exodus) and greatly widen the scope of the debate. That is, if IAJ assumes that Moses was the author. I think this is a brick wall, because IAJ will not be able to bring evidence (outside of tradition, say) of an extremely ancient origin for the Hebrew Bible, and Butterfly won't be able to accept that IAJ takes the tradition that Moses authored the texts as evidence.
On the religious side, tradition is support for one's position. Whether one agrees with that position or not is another issue.

There isn't really any framework set up in that debate for either to debate the veracity of their claims. There isn't really a topic to take a position on.

If IAJ makes a claim that the Bible was the first to blah blah blah and his support is that it was written by Moses about whatever time, then BFT needs to present his support that such and such was written before that time. Just not accepting IAJ's support doesn't mean IAJ didn't provide support or reasoned argumentation.

I would not consider their debate to be a science forum type debate since the quotes came from the Bible study forum. BFT is questioning IAJ on the Hebrew Bible, not the Christian Bible.

BFT doesn't seem to have a consistent argument other than I think he wants IAJ to prove his claims are true to BFT's satisfaction, as opposed to BFT presenting his own position with support to show the audience his position.

I think both sides need to realize the other isn't going to concede so demands for such are a wasted effort and clutter the debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-30-2011 1:44 PM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 19 of 22 (635755)
10-01-2011 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by IamJoseph
10-01-2011 12:23 AM


Re: A flat earth
IamJoseph writes:

OK. You may talk about me when I'm not here.

Think of it like you're one of the actors performing on the stage of The Hebrew Bible (Butterflytyrant and IamJoseph Only), and the people in this thread are the theater critics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2011 12:23 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1533 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 20 of 22 (635933)
10-03-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Wollysaurus
09-30-2011 1:44 PM


Universe is Finite
I'm not clear about BFT's point in dating the document.

IAJ made the claim that the Hebrew Bible marks the first recording that the universe if finite and BFT seems to understand that IAJ bases this claim on the first sentence of Genesis (In the beginning).

As I said before, BFT seems to switch between saying first recording and oldest copy. I haven't run into anything that doubts that the Torah was written or compiled before 250BCE. So I find the Dead Sea Scrolls irrelevant concerning this point.

Per tradition, the Genesis story was written by Moses between 1446 and 1200 BCE. So in a debate on that subject, if he wants to counter tradition, BFT needs to show a document or tradition older that implies the universe is finite.

If he goes with the Documentary Hypothesis, then he needs a document older than about 900 BCE.

IMO, the dating approach is the wrong way to debate the claim of a finite universe. Unfortunately the approach I would take would entail a definition battle. As discussed in the thread, Not The Planet, the word earth doesn't refer to the planet or universe.

It's just speculation trying to put a date on when the Torah stories actually came to life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Wollysaurus, posted 09-30-2011 1:44 PM Wollysaurus has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1600
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 21 of 22 (635935)
10-03-2011 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by IamJoseph
10-01-2011 12:31 AM


Re: A flat earth
I'd appreciate any hard copy proof of any such greek writings older than the Hebrew or pre-300 BCE. Take your time - no hurry.

Certainly. Aristotle, some time in the 4th century BCE, wrote De Caelo, 'On the Heavens'. To quote from the translation at sacredtexts.com

quote:
We need not be troubled by the question, arising from the spherical shape of the world, how there can be a distinction of right and left within it, all parts being alike and all for ever in motion.

and later in the same book:

quote:
This indicates not only that the earth’s mass is spherical in shape, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2011 12:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 22 of 22 (640804)
11-13-2011 11:58 AM


I know I am not supposed to post here but it is for the good of the debate.

Would it be possible for any readers of the Great debate between myself and IamJoseph to point out any holes or issues with my arguements.

I am having a bit of trouble getting actual sense out of IMJ.

If there is a point that I have made that is wrong like a date or a translation, please point it out with a source so I can correct it.

All I am getting from IMJ is accusations that I am wrong but no logical reasons to back his problems up and no sources to back up opposing arguements.

PS - IamJosephs claims came from a large number of posts, from both science and biblical threads the first being the science thread regarding the scientific theory of the creation of light.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019