Daniel was interpreting a dream of the king. Obviously this was metaphoric. This is a looong stretch on your part. We all know how ridiculous dreams can get.
If not every part of the Bible is literal, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Who gets to make that distinction? You?
LOL. All this is depicting is the fact that the earth is designed and shaped according to the design intended for it. The topography of it is irrelevant for the purpose of the analogy.
Perhaps more like the features (I.E., life) on / of earth adapted TO the already existing earth. Creationists have it backwards. But this is beside the point.
The devil never physically took Jesus anywhere. Obviously a man standing anywhere on the earth could not see physically with his eyes all of the kingdoms of the earth
I'm glad you think it's obvious too.
whether it was flat or spherical.
Actually, no. If the "mountain" was sufficiently high enough, you could essentially be able to view the whole Earth (given that it is flat--which, I hope you'll agree, it is not).
That the temptations were visions is further evidenced by the fact that a man and the devil are not going to be standing physically on the pinnacle of the temple. This was a visionary event.
Again, where are you getting this from? The passage itself doesn't explicitly state this, so you must be getting it from an outside source. I thought the Bible was to be taken literally?
Then I guess Genesis, the Flood, and Revelation are to be taken metaphorically also, seeing as how they're equally ridiculous.
This is nothing but a bare assertion, having no evidence.
Are you arguing the Hebrew meaning of "firmament"? It's fairly clear what the passage is talking about.
This is not clearly a solid domed sky. Obviously you're not savvy to Biblical speak. You, like other skeptics metaphorize texts which are clearly not meant to be and cite intentionally abstract texts to falsify the scriptures.
Once again--where and how are you making this distinction? Apparently you're some kind of Biblical scholar if you think you can pick and choose which passages are metaphorical on a whim.
I fail to see correlation to a flat earth here. As for the waters, we know that there is water in the atmosphere. What's the deal?
But a separation between both "waters"? How do you reconcile this? Surely he's not talking about individual air particles. Water in the atmosphere is EVERYWHERE in the atmosphere; there's no visible "separation"; at least not one big enough to be cited by Yahweh himself.
In Job 26:7, "....he hangeth the earth upon nothing." (ASV) So the foundation thing which you cited simply means it's location is established.
As it's been said before, the Earth is most definitely not "established". I don't really consider an object hurling through space at breakneck speeds along an orbit as "fixed", and I hope neither do you.
Consider this: The Bible says there was a world wide flood covering the whole earth. On a sphere, this could apply, but not feasable on a flat earth.
Why not? God could have thrown in temporary "walls" out of nowhere to hold the water in. Seeing as how everything else about the flood is equally unfeasible and unrealistic, I don't see a problem with God going a little extra.
™ Version 4.2
