Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
45 online now:
ICANT, PaulK (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 881,976 Year: 13,724/23,288 Month: 242/412 Week: 29/40 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 3719 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 391 of 473 (544698)
01-27-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by doctrbill
01-27-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Slipping Into Darkness
i have no objection except...
Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning.
How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by doctrbill, posted 01-27-2010 9:16 PM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Iblis, posted 01-27-2010 11:08 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded
 Message 393 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2010 12:24 AM hawkes nightmare has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2586 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 392 of 473 (544713)
01-27-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:23 PM


Slipping Into Another Thread Dude
Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning.
How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands?

Which has nothing to do with the imagined flatness of the earth in ancient times. You are going off-topic everywhere as soon as you get challenged. This isn't going to be tolerated, you are in danger of being persecuted for your belief that you can just change the subject whenever things go tight for you. Hopefully the ACLU will step in and get you some professional help.

In the meantime, there's a nice thread that's been set up for you where you can do this galloping about from point to point to your heart's content. Please join us as we review all your points all together in Message 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:23 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 393 of 473 (544723)
01-28-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 10:23 PM


Re: Slipping Into Darkness
i have no objection except...
Darwin's theories were so incomplete you need a transcript of the evolutionary chain to even half-understand his book, "on the origin of species". there are too many holes in his reasoning.
How do you get "all species are alike and have evolved from each other" from studying minor changes in birds on the galapogos islands?

Has it not occurred to you that since you have never bothered to read Darwin's book, this renders you unable either to state under which conditions it can be understood or to criticize his reasoning?

Anyway, I believe that we were discussing the real deficiencies of the real content of the Bible, not the imaginary deficiencies of the imaginary content of the Origin of Species.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 10:23 PM hawkes nightmare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-28-2010 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 3719 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 394 of 473 (544853)
01-28-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Dr Adequate
01-28-2010 12:24 AM


Re: Slipping Into Darkness
yes, i have read part of the book. have you?


I am lost, I am found. I am lost to myself, found in the darkness beneath hell itself

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former. -Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2010 12:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2010 10:00 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded
 Message 396 by Granny Magda, posted 01-29-2010 7:20 AM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 395 of 473 (544867)
01-28-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by hawkes nightmare
01-28-2010 6:10 PM


Re: Slipping Into Darkness
yes, i have read part of the book.

The title?

have you?

I've read all of it, which is why I know what's in it and you don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-28-2010 6:10 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 396 of 473 (544893)
01-29-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by hawkes nightmare
01-28-2010 6:10 PM


Re: Slipping Into Darkness
Hi HN,

yes, i have read part of the book.

Wow. Part of the book. Well colour me impressed.

Did you read the title of this thread? It's a lot shorter than the Origin. It's "The Bible's Flat Earth", so unless you have anything to add to that particular discussion, I would appreciate it if you could quit cluttering up the thread with off-topic trivia.

Thank you.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-28-2010 6:10 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2147 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 397 of 473 (545107)
02-01-2010 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by hawkes nightmare
01-27-2010 8:14 PM


Flat land or Flat Planet
quote:
drbill's picture also denies the existence of a flat earth. just an extra bit of information.
This is one of those occasions that capitalization makes a difference.

Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.

Dr. Bill's assertion is that Bible writers didn't refer to the planet when using the various Hebrew words translated as earth and world. They were describing their view of their surroundings.

A flat planet never existed as far as I know, but "flat" ground does exist.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by hawkes nightmare, posted 01-27-2010 8:14 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by doctrbill, posted 02-01-2010 11:45 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1455 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 398 of 473 (545122)
02-01-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by purpledawn
02-01-2010 6:56 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.

That is how I do it, and that is how I understand that it is to be done today but I am unclear on exactly what the thinking may have been in years past. I am quite sure, for example, that translators of the King James Version (1611) had a different system from those who revised it in 1769. In 1611, the opening line of Genesis reads:
quote:
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. Gen 1:1

In 1769 it was given to read:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1

In both the 1611 and 1769 editions, the word earth is capitalized at verses 10 and 11 but in verse 12 it is not.

quote:
Gen 1:10 - And God called the drie land, Earth, ....
Gen 1:11 - And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, ....
Gen 1:12 - And the earth brought foorth grasse, ...
Modern translations tend to follow the precedents set by the KJV in 1769 but there are exceptions.
The New International Version and the New Living Translation, which are both popular with "evangelicals," avoid the issue here by eliminating "earth" from these verses and going with the word "land" instead.

Then there's The Message, a shameless paraphrase popular among the more liberal "fundamentalists." In that version, the word "earth" is capitalized in every one of its 15 instances in the first chapter of Genesis. This reminds me of how the German language handles nouns but the MSG does not do so consistently throughout the Bible. Needless to say, perhaps, but its creators seem to feel free to capitalize it wherever they believe it might work to good effect for them. To put this another way: They capitalize when they wish the reader to imagine a global or planetary scope.

Thoughts anyone?

A flat planet never existed as far as I know, but "flat" ground does exist.

An excellent point my friend.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by purpledawn, posted 02-01-2010 6:56 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by hawkes nightmare, posted 02-02-2010 8:21 PM doctrbill has not yet responded
 Message 404 by greyseal, posted 02-08-2010 8:34 AM doctrbill has responded

  
hawkes nightmare
Junior Member (Idle past 3719 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 01-26-2010


Message 399 of 473 (545282)
02-02-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by doctrbill
02-01-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
this is debate about a flat earth, not english class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by doctrbill, posted 02-01-2010 11:45 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Meldinoor, posted 02-02-2010 10:34 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded
 Message 401 by bluescat48, posted 02-03-2010 1:53 AM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 3498 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 400 of 473 (545297)
02-02-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by hawkes nightmare
02-02-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Care to contribute then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by hawkes nightmare, posted 02-02-2010 8:21 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 401 of 473 (545305)
02-03-2010 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by hawkes nightmare
02-02-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Yes it is about a flat earth. The problem is that most of the biblical references are being put in the following:

People are trying to read the Bible through 21st century eyes, rather than through the eyes of the bronze age men who first told these stories. Earth is earth. To the man who told these stories the entire Earth was simply earth & water, not a planet. Whether one translates it as earth or land is irrelevant. They didn't know what the earth was.
Try reading what is there rather that what someone else says is there.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by hawkes nightmare, posted 02-02-2010 8:21 PM hawkes nightmare has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 402 of 473 (546058)
02-07-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by hERICtic
01-22-2010 12:04 PM


hERICtic writes:

there are hundreds if not thousands of contradiction and errors int the Bible.

Hi Eric. Again, welcome.

Eric, haven't you been told thousands of times not to exaggerate?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by hERICtic, posted 01-22-2010 12:04 PM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by hERICtic, posted 02-08-2010 8:06 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 3207 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 403 of 473 (546080)
02-08-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 10:46 PM


Hi Buz.

Exaggerate? Not at all! I stand behind my claim! The problem of course is that an apologist doesn't know what a contradiction is! .

Can you give me an example of a contradiction? Make one up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:46 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2552 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 404 of 473 (546087)
02-08-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by doctrbill
02-01-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
Capitalized the word "earth" means our planet. Without capitalization the word "earth" means ground.

That is how I do it, and that is how I understand that it is to be done today but I am unclear on exactly what the thinking may have been in years past. I am quite sure, for example, that translators of the King James Version (1611) had a different system from those who revised it in 1769. In 1611, the opening line of Genesis reads:
quote:
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. Gen 1:1

In 1769 it was given to read:
quote:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen 1:1

In both the 1611 and 1769 editions, the word earth is capitalized at verses 10 and 11 but in verse 12 it is not.

I'm not sure, but this line of reasoning makes sense:

in 1611 (well, before then too), Earth meant "the dry bits where we can walk and the places that hold the seas" - the Earth was distinct from Heaven, hence they capitalized it the same way some capitalize Him and everything He does when talking about God or Jesus.

But in 1769, they'd discovered that the Earth was a planet, hence had a name, hence it was called the Earth - and capitalized as such.

And so now, the word "earth" in Genesis could no longer be capitalized because it was not referring to planet Earth and never had been and must change from Earth to earth to reflect this - the people who translated and were responsible for the bible being very dilligent about not lying through their teeth to prove a point.

The biblical world was the waters above, the waters below, the heavens and the earth - and the earth was just "ground". The planet Earth was named Earth (and the word capitalized) because of the bible, not the other way around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by doctrbill, posted 02-01-2010 11:45 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by doctrbill, posted 02-10-2010 10:35 PM greyseal has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1455 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 405 of 473 (546453)
02-10-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by greyseal
02-08-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Flat land or Flat Planet
greyseal writes:

... in 1769, they'd discovered that the Earth was a planet, hence had a name, hence it was called the Earth - and capitalized as such.

And so now, the word "earth" in Genesis could no longer be capitalized because it was not referring to planet Earth and never had been and must change from Earth to earth to reflect this -

That's an interesting idea but doesn't seem to fit the case. In fact, while the word "earth" is no longer capitalized at Genesis 1:1 (1769 edition); it continues to be capitalized at Genesis 1:10. There appears to be no textual clue as the nature of "earth" at Genesis 1:1, unless one takes it to be the same earth as that of Genesis 1:10. The "Earth" of Genesis 1:10 does in fact provide a textual clue as to its nature. That verse appears to define the term as a "dry" place and contrasts its dryness with the wetness by which it is surrounded.

quote:
"God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: ... God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas:" Genesis 1:9,10

This verse, with "earth" capitalized, might serve to illustrate your point regarding the significance of capitalization, i.e. that it indicates a planetary status; except, unhappily for your theory, the "Earth" in this case is the "dry" place which appeared in the water when the water had been pulled from off it; gathered together into a pool (i.e. "one place"). Sounds very much like how "dry land" appears when the tide goes out. Doesn't sound at all like a planet which "appears" in the ocean.

quote:
"... the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" 2 Peter 3:5 KJV

In both of these cases, and as otherwise evidenced numerous times throughout the Scriptures, Earth and Sea are never lumped together as if they were parts of a greater whole called "earth" but are alway mentioned discreetly, as if they were wholly separate realities.

Consider the angel who:

quote:
"... set his right foot upon the sea, and [his] left [foot] on the earth," Revelation 10:2


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by greyseal, posted 02-08-2010 8:34 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by greyseal, posted 02-11-2010 3:41 AM doctrbill has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020