There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

No. That isn't reason enough to take a passage literally. A wholly fictional passage could be historically and scientifically accurate. No. If the passage is wrong, it might just be wrong. You can't automatically conclude that it was meant to be figurative.The Old Testament authors (probably) believed matter-of-factly that the earth was flat. So what?If there was a passage that said flat-out that "The earth is an oblate spheroid," that might indicate advanced scientific knowledge on the part of the authors. It would not, however, reflect at all on the Bible's overall accuracy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Set on its foundation and can not be moved" does mean it is not moving. It says "can not be moved", not "can not be stopped". You're turning the Bible upside down. It says nothing of the kind. You're just making that up.It's sad that you feel you have to butcher the Bible to give it value.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm not comparing translations at all. I'm only quoting what you said about the translation.You said that "can not be moved" means "can not be stopped":

quote:

---

... it is set on it's foundation and can not be moved. meaning that man can not stop it....

---

Nothing in any translation changes "can not be moved" to "can not be stopped".And anything set on a foundation does not move.Then you made up some nonsense about rotatation and moving around the sun:

quote:

---

the foundation being it's spot in our system, and it's rotation in that system around the sun.

---

There is nothing in any translation about rotation or "our system" or moving around the sun.The Bible was written with the point of view that the earth was fixed in space - and more to the point of the topic, it was flat. They didn't know any better. So what?You're bending over backwards trying to shoehorn some modern science into the Bible.
It doesn't work.Take the Bible for what it is. Don't mangle it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But you can't do that. You can't use today's understanding to retroactively claim that the Bible authors understood the same thing.You have to look at what the bible says to try to understand what the authors meant. You can't start by assuming what they meant and then go back and rearrange the words to suit yourself. I don't believe it. You'll have to give us more than just your word on that.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No I don't. If you have a point, you have to make it. If you claim that the Hebrew backs you up, then you have to show that. There's a big difference between "moved" and "removed".A house built on a foundation does not move. That's the imagery that the Bible authors used. Some houses are removed from their foundations, but the earth can not be. That does not suggest in any way that the house moves on its foundation or that the earth moves.Using the word "remove" instead of "move" just weakens your case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The details of its movement are irrelevant. The Bible says it doesn't move. In every context I know, a "foundation" means something intended to prevent movement. That's clearly what the Bible authors meant. I'm just reading what the Bible plainly says. You're the one who's playing games, claiming that "can't be removed" means "moving" and making up fairy tales about rotation.If the Hebrew really does back up your case, just show us.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

In all of your examples, a "foundation" is something that does not change, does not move. Nothing you have said changes the simple reading of the text: the earth does not move.I'm still waiting for you to show us how the Hebrew says otherwise.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That makes no sense. If you gave the proof, why would I have to search for it? Why should I search for proof of your point?
If you're so sure I'll find it, why don't you find it and present it? Both of those versions still say the same thing: the earth doesn't move.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course. Maybe you're just unfamiliar with the English language, but you seem to be contradicting yourself.The Bible authors didn't know that the earth moves. They wrote very clearly that the earth does not move.What do you mean by, "they knew very well what it meant"? Have you mistaken me for a Bible literalist? I'm not saying I believe the Bible. I'm saying the Bible is wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If you're alluding to the verse:

quote:

---

Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

---

it should be noted that there is no mountain high enough - nor orbit high enough - to see the whole surface of the earth.The verse suggests:

1. an ignorance of the spherical nature of the earth, or
2. an ignorance of the geography of the earth, or
3. a figurative description of the earth.

In no way can the verse be literally accurate.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's just it though - he clearly did mean the whole world. He said "all the kingdoms of the world". The only way to see "all the kingdoms of the world" from one point above the earth would be if the earth was flat.That verse clearly shows the author's understanding that the earth is flat.Now, I'm saying that the Bible is simply flat-out wrong about that. That's all, just wrong.That doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't have it's value. It just means that it's wrong about that particular thing.You, on the other hand, seem to want to twist the Bible to make it "right". You seem to be saying that the authors "meant" to get it right, and that we should bend over backwards to make it right, even if we have to ignore what the Bible actually says.Edited by Ringo, : New Improved subtitle.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The question is: why should we allow them any slack? If they wrote "as if" they thought the world was flat, how can we assume that they knew better?I take them at their word. If they described the world as flat, I conclude that they thought it was flat.You seem to be assuming that they "must have" known it was round, but they described it as flat anyway. Why would they do that? Aren't you paying any attention at all to what I say? I have said several times now that they Bible is wrong when it says the earth is flat.The fact that it's not a science book is irrelevant. It does say quite plainly that the earth is flat. It's wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We're not talking about the message of the book. We're talking about what the text says and whether or not what it says is accurate. I would think, "That isn't the whole world." And since the author specifically said, "all the kingdoms of the world," I'd think he didn't know much about the world. You're missing the point of this forum.If a book said, "Pink fairies eat cheese all day long," I could look for the message behind it. Or I could check the real world to see if it contains real pink fairies.That's what the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum is about. There are some people who read in the Bible that there was a worldwide flood and they believe it. They don't bother to look at the real world to see if there really was a flood. This forum is about comparing what the Bible says to the real world. It's not about looking for messages.So our only point of contention is about what the Bible says.Forget about messages. Forget about philosophy. Forget about wearing anybody else's shoes.Read the passage and decide what it says. Does it say/suggest/imply that the world is anything but flat? Does what it says correspond to the real world?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Please try to pay attention, just this once.This forum, the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum, is about science. There are people who think there is science in the Bible and the point of this forum is to examine their claims.It's not about "breaking down" the Bible. It's about trying to show people that the Bible isn't science.Since you seem to agree that the Bible isn't about science, why don't you contribute something constructive to this forum instead of accusing me of having evil motives?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I am not trying to break anybody's faith. Please STOP accusing me of that. As I said, STOP accusing me of that. It is FALSE. On the contrary, asking questions helps us to learn. Do you really want to learn or are you just interested in making false accusations?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC