The Bible's Flat Earth

Peg now you are just embarrassing yourself. GM has provided dozens of references that show the writers thought of the earth as flat. It is getting to the point that your refutations are ridiculous.Is there a passage that says "The earth is flat". No. Are their passages that a normal person would interpret as saying the same thing? Yes, lots of them. GM has provided plenty to show you are manipulating what the bible says so that you won't lose the argument. You lost. Accept it and be done with it. Because now you are looking silly.

Are you implying that they referred to the Middle East as the Middle East in classical times?
This whole line of argument seems laughable.As for corners, I don't know the original text, but I would find it hard to believe that the original has the same dual meanings as corner does in English.Can any of the bible experts help out on the word for corner in the original?Edited by Theodoric, : Misread post

Young's Literal Translation uses the term

quote:

---

from the ends of the earth

---

I would read that as more indicative of a flat earth mindset than the word corner. Also, this would not agree with your interpretation of corner.

So buzz's interpretation of what is meant really doesn't seem to fit what the literal meaning of the word is.I cannot see extremity meaning cornered/established or located. It seems obvious that it means the extremity, the outer limits. Thus reinforcing GM's point.In times like this is always best to go to the most original text we can find. Not to rely on someones interpretation of what was meant.

The geopolitical term Middle East, first coined in 1902 by United States naval officer Alfred Thayer Mahan,So I guess the ancients didn't call it the middle east.

Do you bother to read other posts that criticize you and show the flaws in your logic?OK let me step you through this slowly. Try to keep up.Bibles are translated to English from the original language, be it Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. The original word is kanaph Some bibles have translated it as corner.
Just because corner means these different things in English, does not mean Kanaph means these two things.Words are not always directly translatable between languages. Here is a real simple example.THe spanish word arco.This translates to Bow in English, as in bow and arrow. NOw it would be ludicrous to to translate this as
bow - A knot usually having two loops and two endsSo if you can show that Kanaph means the multiple things corner does then you may be on to something.Oh wait!! It seems other translations dont use the word corner. That doesn't seem to help does it.Please read other posts. Message 42

How to you equate with

I am sure this was just a metaphor. Oh unless it is something that needs to be taken literally in order for the book to be inerrant.Peg,Just give me a primer so I know what parts of this book should be taken literal and which parts should be taken metaphorical.Must be easy. You and buzz seem to have no problem determining what the distinction is. Once you can do this I am sure all of this misunderstanding will go away.Thanks. Once I get this lesson maybe your arguments won't seem so random and senseless.

Nice to see that you are interested in truth.No really. You are supposed to actually try to convince us. Not just throw a bunch of crap against the wall and hope something sticks.What you should do is go back to your pretty bible verses and tell us why we should interpret them the way you have. Justify your argument. Come on you can do it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts.

Black,Really if all you have are personal attacks then please go someplace else. You left a jackass response and I was trying to show you that you need to back up your statements with some sort of evidence.Invoking scripture is not evidence.If you are just coming here to insult, then go someplace else.Just attacking other peoples evidence is not evidence. You need to provide some to show why your beliefs have validity.

So you agree that the bible is not inerrant?

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod seems to be straight forward as to what inerrancy means to them.Thus,we believe that the Bible is both incapable of
error (infallible) and free from error (inerrant).
SourceNow here is something I find very interesting based on the Chicago statement Chicago Statement
There is nothing quite like leaving yourself an out big enough to drive a bus through. In other words, the bible is infallible and inerrant except for the parts that aren't. And who gets to make these determinations? I guess anyone that needs to be deluded so they believe their religion.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why do believers almost always assume non-believers have never read the bible? Personally I have read it cover to cover at least 4 times. The last time just 2 years ago. I find that the non-believers know much more about the bible than believers. Do you know what happens when you examine something critically? You learn more.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts