The Bible's Flat Earth

Where? Where?I think the expression you're looking for is: Hear! Hear!

That's exactly what you do with your crap on Gen 1&2.What does hypocrisy taste like?

I can see that the Bible is not inerrant and it doesn't make me
denounce it. It allows us to see it for what it is as opposed to butchering it in an attept to maintain its inerrancy. Just look at some of the mental gymnastics that people have to perform to maintain that, and how much they have to twist their interpretations, which hilariously means they're no longer reading it literally. It makes so much more sense when you can accept that it can contain some errors here and there.

Who is the first person Jesus spoke to after leaving his tomb and how many people were there?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The Earth is *NOT* fixed and immoble. The Bible is wrong about that.

quote:

---

The sun and its planets are known to streak through the void of space at approximately 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) an hour.

---

source

Right, it is not "fixed" to anything. To say that the Earth is fixed is wrong.I don't know what you mean by a "fixed orbit", but I could probably imagine a way that the Earth could be described as fixed to something (that itself would have to be moving), and I suppose I could reconcile that to prevent the Bible from actually being 'wrong', but then I wouldn't be reading the Bible literally anymore, and I could just make up whatever I want it to be saying. I think it would be pathetic of me to go through all those mental gymnastics just to maintain that the Bible is inerrant, which would also probably mean that my faith was a house of cards whereas a single error in the book means that I'd stop believing in God. And sense I wouldn't be able to bring myself to do that, I wouldn't actually listen to or consider anybody's argument as to why that would be a horrible interpretation and also a basterdizing of the religion.So, I'm not actually going to argue against 'fixed' meaning 'stable orbit'.And that doesn't even touch on the "immoble" part. I can't even imagine the crazy antics I'd have to come up with to make that one fit. Care to humor us all with your attempt? If you think that the writers thought that the Earth was a big ball flying through space around the sun, then you have a lot to learn about their culture. If you started a new thread on it then I, and I'd bet many others here, would help in correcting your misconceptions. Or would you rather I did? Would you participate?Plus, that's hardly 'immovable', eh? You're incapable of knowing that, and actually your wrong.I do "see how the rest is correct". I'm just not going to lie to myself to maintain its inerrancy, especially when its so obvious like the example we're discussing.At this point your position is that when they wrote "fixed and immovable" they were accurate and probably referring to the Earth's orbit, right? Don't you see that the writers didn't view their world like that?Or are we going to go down the route of God inspiring them in a way that they wrote something that was completely different than what they understood themselves to be writing?

---

Let the record show that my attemps at civility have been met with insult. What I mean to say is... he started it.

I like it. To me it does read as god naming the dry land Earth... but it still isn't referring to the whole planet. It think that he thought that you were saying that "above" and "below" were already divided before the creation, which would be wrong.But you are right that the waters were already there.

quote:

---

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

​

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

I think I read something here before about some Jewish folklore with the whole face of the deep and waters thing being the null, or default, state of all exstence.... or something like that.

Isn't water also thought of as some kind of essence of all things, or something like that.I'd have to do some searching but I'm kinda busy at work now.

I'm pretty sure he's NOT saying that the capitalization is related to awareness of "earth" being a planet. He's saying they're using it in a proper noun form as the name of the dry land (which they don't think is a planet).Like:Let the dry earth be named Earth...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Huh?Growing up Catholic, we always used the KJV.

never heard of it...I dunno what the "official" one is, but in my 12 years of Catholic school we used the KJV.

Erets cannot be referring to a planet, as in a large sphere flying around in space. The concept was simply unavailable at the time.Even it meaning "whole earth (as opposed to part)" is not referring to a planet as a large sphere flying around in space. Those people just did not have that concept available to them. How dare you! PD is a very nice, reasonable, and honest person. You're just being a dick.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The Bible is clearly not inerrant, and nobody knows whether or not it was divinely inspired.If you want to assume its divinely inspired, then you have to wonder why God would tell them something that's true meaning was completely different than what they thought it to be (i.e. erets referring to a concept they were unable to have). And that is not a planet, so you don't think they were referring to a planet either.So why argue otherwise? I think that you think that when they referred to the earth in it entirety, that that must mean a planet. But that is our modern understanding of the earth in its entirety and they were incapable of having that concept, so them referring to the entire earth could not be them referring to a planet as we understand it today. Arguing that erets does refer to a planet isn't anything close to the argument above No. The entire earth does not equal a planet for their conception of our world. Showing it refers to the enitre earth does not show that they're referring to a planet. As you said, to them the enitire earth was a disc.

Not necessarily. The sun does go south of you and then come back towards the north. Standing in my back yard, the sun is not directly over head, it is to the south. When it sets, it comes back towards the north a little and sets closer to due west.Like this: or this:

Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. I think you're getting it right, and it does go against the Greek reasoning, but what scripture are you thinking of that doesn't mesh with it? Oh yeah. Way better than trying to describe that path of the sun in words.Google Images FTW!