Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
49 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,963 Year: 13,711/23,288 Month: 229/412 Week: 16/40 Day: 1/12 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible's Flat Earth
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 451 of 473 (553368)
04-02-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by rockondon
04-02-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
quote:
Sadly, this has nothing to do with our conversation. Everyone and their dog accept that those two words have different meanings, nobody cares.
I said several meanings, not different meanings.

quote:
And I've clearly shown that one of the meanings of erets is the earth...the entire earth. Not just dirt, or ground, or land, but the entire planet.
You have not shown that erets means planet. Remember, earth does not mean planet. At most you have entire land.

quote:
Instead of simply admitting the error and moving on, you go on this tedious path of rebuttals like that silly moving-the-goalposts-style equivocation about "eretz and earth have several meanings" - please tell me who on this forum was insisting that both 'earth' and 'eretz' have only one meaning so you and I can destroy their arguments together.
You implied in Message 446 that I didn't accept that they had multiple meanings. I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet.

rockondon writes:

An honest person would admit that the word has multiple definitions, including the planet earth, and would consider those many definitions to reach their own interpretation of that verse.
But not you.

quote:
My position is that Isaiah described the world as he thought it was, a flat disc. I've often heard that Isaiah said the earth was round before anyone else knew it was, so I'm pointing out that not only is that wrong, but that his claims are further proof that the bible is not inerrant.
Isaiah creatively described his environment and his view of God. Isaiah wasn't writing a scientific document. It was written as a poem. Even if he did know the ground curved, it wouldn't necessarily change the way that poem was written.

That verse doesn't necessarily support that the Bible isn't inerrant. I'm sure there are better verses to make your point with. Even today, I wouldn't expect a poem to be scientifically correct. Unless, of course, it was a science poem.


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 449 by rockondon, posted 04-02-2010 1:28 PM rockondon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by rockondon, posted 04-06-2010 12:10 PM purpledawn has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 452 of 473 (553831)
04-05-2010 10:20 AM


Update on Severian
I promised an update on the Severian of Gabala issue and here it is. I will continue to update as Roger Pearse pursues this further at his site.

Pearse has translated part of one of Serverian's homilies. Here is the bit that we're interested in;

quote:
Let us now ask where the sun goes down, and where, during the night, it purses its course? According to our adversaries, under the land; and we who look at the sky as a tent, what is our feeling on this? Look and see, I beg you, whether we are in error, or whether the truth of our opinion appears clearly, and whether reality is in agreement with our hypothesis.

Imagine that above your head a pavilion has been set up. East would be there, north here, south there and west there. When the sun has left the East and starts to set, it will not set under the land; but crossing the limits of the sky, it traverses the northern areas where it is hidden by a kind of wall from our gaze, the upper waters concealing his journey from us; and, after having traversed these areas, it returns to the East.

And where is the proof of this assertion? In Ecclesiastes, an authentic and not interpolated work of Solomon: “The sun rises and the sun sets,” it is written there; “while rising, it moves towards its setting, then it turns to the north; it turns, it turns, and it rises again in its place.” Eccl., i, 5. Otherwise it is during the winter that you will note this southward journey of the sun, and its movement in the direction of the north; then, it does not rise in the centre of the East, it inclines towards the south, and, following a shorter route, it makes the day shorter; once it has set, it continues its circular direction, and the nights then are longer.

We all know, my brothers, that the sun always does not start at the same point. How then do the days become shorter? Because the sun, to rise, moves from the south; then, from where it rises, it follows an oblique path, and from this comes the brevity of the days. As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night. When the distance traversed and the speed of travel are the same, the nights then are equal to the days. After that, it moves northwards as during the winter it had moved south; it rises in the northern heights and makes the day longer; on the other hand the curve which it must follow during the night being shorter, the nights also become shorter.

This is not what the Greeks have taught us: they do not want these teachings, and they claim that the sun and the stars continue their course beneath the land. But no, the Scripture, this divine mistress, the Scripture leads us and dispenses her light to us.


Note that Pearse describes his efforts as "translated roughly"; he is planning to get a better translation done.

Source; http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=3952

Severian clearly thinks the sky-as-tent metaphor, much discussed on this thread, is intended to describe a literal domed sky, sitting upon a flat disc. He's clearly a flat-Earther. Of course Severian may be mistaken in his interpretation and the Bible authors may have intended another meaning. Nonetheless, here is a Christian Bishop, writing towards the end of the Forth century, who clearly thinks that the scripture is flat-Earth. His opinions do not appear to have been sufficiently heretical to have caused him or his writings any problems.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 8:04 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 453 of 473 (554050)
04-06-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Granny Magda
04-05-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Update on Severian
quote:
Severian clearly thinks the sky-as-tent metaphor, much discussed on this thread, is intended to describe a literal domed sky, sitting upon a flat disc. He's clearly a flat-Earther. Of course Severian may be mistaken in his interpretation and the Bible authors may have intended another meaning. Nonetheless, here is a Christian Bishop, writing towards the end of the Forth century, who clearly thinks that the scripture is flat-Earth. His opinions do not appear to have been sufficiently heretical to have caused him or his writings any problems.
Fascinating! Considering that by the 4th century Hellenistic Astronomy had supposedly established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.

I noticed that what we have written today is different than what the Septuagint had.

Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 (NIV)
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

Septuagint
5 And the sun arises, and the sun goes down and draws toward its place; 6 arising there it proceeds southward, and goes round toward the north. The wind goes round and round, and the wind returns to its circuits.

I wish we knew which way he was pointing.

Imagine that above your head a pavilion has been set up. East would be there, north here, south there and west there. When the sun has left the East and starts to set, it will not set under the land; but crossing the limits of the sky, it traverses the northern areas where it is hidden by a kind of wall from our gaze, the upper waters concealing his journey from us; and, after having traversed these areas, it returns to the East.

I assume by what he describes that he is pointing up towards the sky as north. I also assume that he means the ground is south. It sounds like he's redefining the directions to fit his purpose and making up his own "science." It would be interesting to know where he was placing the directions.

If he is staying true to accepted directions, then he really has the sun doing a dance.

The author of Ecclesiastes at least was describing creatively what we see concerning the sun. Severian seemed to create his own story for whatever purpose. I'm curious why he would need the sun to behave as he described.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Granny Magda, posted 04-05-2010 10:20 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 10:25 AM purpledawn has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 454 of 473 (554070)
04-06-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by purpledawn
04-06-2010 8:04 AM


Re: Update on Severian
I assume by what he describes that he is pointing up towards the sky as north. I also assume that he means the ground is south. It sounds like he's redefining the directions to fit his purpose and making up his own "science." It would be interesting to know where he was placing the directions.

If he is staying true to accepted directions, then he really has the sun doing a dance.

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:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 8:04 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 455 of 473 (554081)
04-06-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 10:25 AM


Re: Update on Severian
Thanks for the photos. Your first photo was also a visual I had, but didn't know what to call it. I thought it would be odd for someone to think up was north.

So the Septuagint version is still describing what one can see and understand standing in their backyard. Assuming the text is correct, of course.

5 And the sun arises, and the sun goes down and draws toward its place; 6 arising there it proceeds southward, and goes round toward the north. The wind goes round and round, and the wind returns to its circuits.

Severian apparently doesn't like the geocentric or Ptolemaic view of the universe. He doesn't like the idea that the sun and stars "go beneath the land".

This is not what the Greeks have taught us: they do not want these teachings, and they claim that the sun and the stars continue their course beneath the land. But no, the Scripture, this divine mistress, the Scripture leads us and dispenses her light to us.

So is Severian saying the sun goes back across the sky behind the "curtain" or "wall" as he put it? Basically enter stage left, run across the stage, exiting stage right, run behind the curtain to enter at stage left again.

If that is true, then Severian is still going against the Greek reasoning of the time and I don't see that the scripture supports the idea of "going behind the curtain". Unless I'm still not understanding what he's saying.

Thanks again for the photos. I like visuals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 11:37 AM purpledawn has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 456 of 473 (554083)
04-06-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by purpledawn
04-06-2010 11:19 AM


Re: Update on Severian
So the Septuagint version is still describing what one can see and understand standing in their backyard.

...

So is Severian saying the sun goes back across the sky behind the "curtain" or "wall" as he put it? Basically enter stage left, run across the stage, exiting stage right, run behind the curtain to enter at stage left again.

Yeah, that's what it looks like to me.

If that is true, then Severian is still going against the Greek reasoning of the time and I don't see that the scripture supports the idea of "going behind the curtain". Unless I'm still not understanding what he's saying.

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?

Thanks again for the photos. I like visuals.

Oh yeah. Way better than trying to describe that path of the sun in words.

Google Images FTW!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 11:19 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 457 of 473 (554086)
04-06-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Update on Severian
quote:
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?
Severian was using Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 to support his position of the trek behind the curtain. I don't see that that scripture supports what he's saying. The scripture doesn't really imply how the sun got back to the "starting point".

By then the Greeks knew the earth was spherical. Was Severian really proposing that the earth wasn't spherical or just that he didn't agree about the path of the sun and the stars?

Message 452
Let us now ask where the sun goes down, and where, during the night, it purses its course? According to our adversaries, under the land; and we who look at the sky as a tent, what is our feeling on this? Look and see, I beg you, whether we are in error, or whether the truth of our opinion appears clearly, and whether reality is in agreement with our hypothesis.

At that point they still thought the earth was the center. Even though the Greeks knew the planet was spherical, did they understand what was on the "underside" or did they view all mankind on the "topside"?

Could Severian and his people view a spherical earth, but the "tent" was only on the top?

Interesting thoughts. More to research.


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 456 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 11:37 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 12:24 PM purpledawn has responded

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3615 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 458 of 473 (554087)
04-06-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by purpledawn
04-02-2010 9:52 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
Granny Magda, thanks for the update. I'd read about Severian's absurdly literal interpretation of the bible and its interesting to see it in more detail.

Purpledawn,

I said several meanings, not different meanings.
We're meaning the same thing - several different meanings.
That verse doesn't necessarily support that the Bible isn't inerrant. I'm sure there are better verses to make your point with.
I agree that there is numerous better examples but the forum is biblical accuracy and inerrancy and the thread title is the bible's flat earth - so I went with the Isaiah example.
I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet.
Sure I have:
Purpledawn: The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth.
erets:
a. earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776
Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.

On topic, it appears that most or all of us agree that the bible is not inerrant. In which case, I'm off in search of more interesting debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by purpledawn, posted 04-02-2010 9:52 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 12:27 PM rockondon has responded
 Message 462 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 2:24 PM rockondon has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 459 of 473 (554091)
04-06-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by purpledawn
04-06-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Update on Severian
Severian was using Ecclesiastes 1:5-6 to support his position of the trek behind the curtain.

Here's the KJV:

quote:
Ecclesiastes 1

1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.


I don't see that that scripture supports what he's saying. The scripture doesn't really imply how the sun got back to the "starting point".

Yeah, there's just not much there. Although, its odd that the sun quickly goes back to where it started. The writer obviouly though the sun went over the earth and did not think that the path it took during the night was the same length as the day.

Severian says:

quote:
As it sets in the extremity of the west, it must necessarily traverse during the night the west, north, all of the east, to arrive on the edge of the south; from which inevitably follows the length of the night.

And this doesn't really fit with what I'm getting from Ecclesiases. So, I'm with you on the lack of scirptural support.

By then the Greeks knew the earth was spherical. Was Severian really proposing that the earth wasn't spherical or just that he didn't agree about the path of the sun and the stars?

I don't know. It seems like he was supporting the dome-and-disc idea though. I don't think we can say from just his interpretation of Ecc 1:5-6, but have to take the whole idea into account.

At that point they still thought the earth was the center. Even though the Greeks knew the planet was spherical, did they understand what was on the "underside" or did they view all mankind on the "topside"?

Could Severian and his people view a spherical earth, but the "tent" was only on the top?

Yeah, I could see it going either way. I just don't have enough info to be confident in one or the other.

Let me know what else you find.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 12:05 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by purpledawn, posted 04-06-2010 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 471 by purpledawn, posted 04-11-2010 7:53 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 460 of 473 (554092)
04-06-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by rockondon
04-06-2010 12:10 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
I'm pretty good at admitting errors when I'm shown them. You haven't shown me an error yet.
Sure I have:
Purpledawn: The Hebrew word erets does not refer to the planet Earth.
erets:
a. earth
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
3) earth (inhabitants)
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776
Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.

Even as referring to the entire earth, it cannot be referring to a planet (as in flying through space like we understand it today).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by rockondon, posted 04-06-2010 12:10 PM rockondon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by rockondon, posted 04-06-2010 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 3615 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 461 of 473 (554102)
04-06-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 12:27 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
Even as referring to the entire earth, it cannot be referring to a planet (as in flying through space like we understand it today).
I agree that the verse is NOT saying that its a round/globe/planet/sphere hurtling through space.
I hope that now we can move on with our lives and find people who disagree with our position to argue with - OKAY?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 462 of 473 (554115)
04-06-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by rockondon
04-06-2010 12:10 PM


Re: Flat Ground or Flat Planet
quote:
Therefore, you were in error. The word 'erets' has several different meanings, one of which is the earth.
Yes, it means earth as in ground, it does not mean Earth as in planet. Do you really not see the difference?

quote:
Message 461
I agree that the verse is NOT saying that its a round/globe/planet/sphere hurtling through space.
But the verse is also clearly not presenting a flat "planet". That's what started this whole issue of earth and planet. As you said in Message 432:

Its called the bible, and it says "earth." Earth is a planet.

Earth is the name of a planet and eretz means earth; but eretz does not mean planet or the name of a planet at that time.

quote:
I agree that there is numerous better examples but the forum is biblical accuracy and inerrancy and the thread title is the bible's flat earth - so I went with the Isaiah example.
I disagree that Isaiah 40:22 is an example of an error or referring to a flat planet. The visual created by the poetry is consistent with how a person in high place would describe what they see. Even a low place without visual obstruction would give the same visual. The horizon. It's a poem, not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by rockondon, posted 04-06-2010 12:10 PM rockondon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by rockondon, posted 04-08-2010 9:39 PM purpledawn has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 2146 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 463 of 473 (554159)
04-06-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2010 12:24 PM


Topside of the Sphere
quote:
Yeah, there's just not much there. Although, its odd that the sun quickly goes back to where it started. The writer obviouly though the sun went over the earth and did not think that the path it took during the night was the same length as the day.
Maybe he wrote during the summer, shorter nights.

quote:
I don't know. It seems like he was supporting the dome-and-disc idea though.
It has been an interesting read about Ptolemy and why he went with the fixed earth. I couldn't find any more on those who believe the "sky as a tent" and how they envisioned the Earth in relation to the sky. The Greeks had the heavens as a sphere and it seems Severian was at odds with that for whatever reason. Those who were considered flat earthers didn't really seem to carry much weight at the time. It wasn't the predominant view. This article on The Scandalous Flat Earth Myth brought up more ideas of what perpetuated the flat earth myths.

It would be nice if they used verses that weren't written poetically to support their flat earth issue. It is too easy to see the "man on the street" viewpoint in the poem, as opposed to factual science.

Needless to say I haven't found a lot more on my thoughts, but it was an interesting hunt. More may surface.


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 459 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2010 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
knight4christ
Junior Member (Idle past 3793 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 04-07-2010


Message 464 of 473 (554296)
04-07-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Granny Magda
02-14-2009 1:28 PM


by immovable the various bible writers were saying that the earth pretty much followed the same rotation also in isaiah are tents flat or spherical? and in daniel it was a dream or a vision it was symbolic for what was about to happen and it actually happen. in matthew it says that jesus shown all of the kingdoms in an instant so by the sounds of it it was only a vision i get all my bible quotes from the niv version its a lot easier to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Granny Magda, posted 02-14-2009 1:28 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Granny Magda, posted 04-07-2010 8:59 AM knight4christ has not yet responded
 Message 466 by purpledawn, posted 04-07-2010 12:09 PM knight4christ has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 465 of 473 (554304)
04-07-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by knight4christ
04-07-2010 8:04 AM


HI There!
Hi knight4christ and welcome to the forum,

by immovable the various bible writers were saying that the earth pretty much followed the same rotation

Most certainly not. The quotes in question come from centuries before anyone was aware that the earth rotated at all. they thought that the sun moved, not the Earth. If you want to pursue this idea, you are going to need to demonstrate that the authors were aware of the actual movements of the Earth and celestial bodies. You are trying to view these words through the eyes of modern readers, with modern knowledge. That is grossly inappropriate.

also in isaiah are tents flat or spherical?

You've misunderstood. The sky is compared to a tent, not the ground. The tent metaphor is describing a dome (the vault of the heavens) not the ground.

and in daniel it was a dream or a vision it was symbolic for what was about to happen and it actually happen.

So what? It was a dream or vision that only makes visual sense in a flat Earth environment. If visions and poems use the imagery of a flat Earth and only a flat Earth, it seems reasonable to me to suppose that they believed in a flat Earth.

in matthew it says that jesus shown all of the kingdoms in an instant

No it doesn't. It says nothing about "an instant". Go and read it again.

so by the sounds of it it was only a vision

Then why the emphasis on using height to gain vantage? A vision could be shown anywhere, but the devil takes Jesus to a great height in order to show him first the world.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by knight4christ, posted 04-07-2010 8:04 AM knight4christ has not yet 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