Where does it say the earth is flat again?

[EGGO]

Something I've heard everywhere, but I haven't found where in the bible it states the earth is flat besides in revelations where blah blah happens in the 4 corners of the earth (speres don't have corners of course).

Anybody knows where the rest is at?

[Icky]

Originally posted by EGGO
Something I've heard everywhere, but I haven't found where in the bible it states the earth is flat besides in revelations where blah blah happens in the 4 corners of the earth (speres don't have corners of course).

Anybody knows where the rest is at?

Daniel 4
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

And then there is Satan showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain. Christians may argue that Satan is powerful enough to do this, but then....what need for a mountain?

[Secular Pinoy]

Try this article (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1990/1/1flat90.html).

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Icky
Daniel 4 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth... If the sight thereof is assumed to a definabel end of all the earth, it seems, that the sight from a high mountain there allows a more limited sight until the horizon, which is given by the height of the mountain and the radius of the earth sphere. A flat earth would not limit in general the sight from a high mountain. Isn’t it?

BTW. The fact, that there is no knowledge about the things beyond horizon does not prove a belief in a flat earth; modern scientists have no knowledge about the end of the universe, and this also does not prove anything.

Volker

[Amos]

Originally posted by EGGO
Something I've heard everywhere, but I haven't found where in the bible it states the earth is flat besides in revelations where blah blah happens in the 4 corners of the earth (speres don't have corners of course).

Anybody knows where the rest is at?

It doesn't really say that but in juxtaposing heaven with earth and heaven being round earth must be flat. It is just a literary expression that literalist ran away with and since they still can't understand this their world is still very flat.

[Aerik Von]

Originally posted by Amos
It doesn't really say that but in juxtaposing heaven with earth and heaven being round earth must be flat. It is just a literary expression that literalist ran away with and since they still can't understand this their world is still very flat.

I find it hilarious that whenever the bible is correct about something that it is considered "proof of the divine perfection of the bible" but when it's obvious dissenting from the scientific viewpoint it's "literary idealism".

It's a nice con, but the bible cannot swing from pretty, literary blather too 100% truth from one moment to the next to explain it's obvious mistakes.

[Amos]

Well it was probably a mistake for you to have opened it because the allegory begins on the first page and ends on the last. We advocate censorship for your benefit and are sorry about your confusion.

[mark9950]

You really should read the book of Enoch.

I think it is part of the catholic bible apocrapha.

You can read it free on the web just type book of enoch.

The book of enoch explains a lot of what is in genesis such as the sons of god in genesis.

Also read this

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by Icky
Daniel 4
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:I had a dream once where I could fly. But I couldn't fly once I woke up. In another dream, I seemed to walk across town in seconds. It seemed natural in my dream, but I couldn't do it after I woke up. I wonder what it all meant?

I like dreams.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Icky
Daniel 4
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

If you would read in context you would see this is a dream. The tree is symbolic.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
Something I've heard everywhere, but I haven't found where in the bible it states the earth is flat besides in revelations where blah blah happens in the 4 corners of the earth (speres don't have corners of course).

Anybody knows where the rest is at?

Since when does 4 corners of the earth mean flat? We use that kind of language today. "I would follow you to the ends of the earth" sound familiar? That in absolutely no way means flat.

[keyser_soze]

If there were very few problems in the text overall, it contained any scientifically valid theories or observations....if it was even 10% correct we could look at the parts that don't jive and agree that it's "not literal", but the book is full of flawed observation, theory, and lies...why should we give it the benefit of the doubt, when it has not earned it? Respect is earned, not given without merit, and this work of fiction has given no reason to date to give it said respect, and thusly benefit of the doubt. Try selling your snake oil a little harder, maybe someone won't think before they try it once in a while and you can feel better about your mythology. If it helps, the greeks and romans, hell EVERY culture in the past has believed in their gods to the same degree that you believe in yours, and had just as much foundation to base that belief on. So why again is yours better? It's certainly not more rational, and it definately has no better support...it must be...well, you tell us, because I just don't get it.

[Icky]

Originally posted by Magus55
If you would read in context you would see this is a dream. The tree is symbolic.

Yeah, right. But we both know that if the so-called dream was about a spherical earth that ships couldn't sail off of, it would be proof positive of the Bible's divine origin.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by Magus55
If you would read in context you would see this is a dream. The tree is symbolic. What about when Satan takes Jesus to a high mountain from which they can see all the kingdoms of the earth? :confused:

[Magus55]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
What about when Satan takes Jesus to a high mountain from which they can see all the kingdoms of the earth? :confused: Do you have the verse on hand? I don't have the Bible memorized yet.

[lpetrich]

Matthew 4:8:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (NIV)

Now where was this mountain?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Matthew 4:8:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (NIV)

Now where was this mountain?

On the moon, obviously, :p and they were there for a full rotation of the earth so that they could see the Chinese civilization as well as the Meso-American civilizations. They had a really good telescope to make out the detail of the splendor, and Satan arranged it so that clouds didn't obscure the kingdoms.

Or maybe Satan had a book, video, or slide presentation that showed all the kingdoms of the earth?

Anything can be explained away with a little creative apologetics and "reading in context".

[Rational BAC]

One thing is a little troubling about the intelligence of our ancestors whether theist or non-theist.

Obviously the Earth must be round or ships would not disappear beneath the horizon about 8 miles out.

Not only should it have been very obvious to any seafaring nation of antiquity with any scientists of any merit that the Earth was round. ---------It should also have been easily proven mathematically from that 8 mile horizon exactly what the circumference of the globe was.

So why were so many scientists and certainly Columbus so screwed up about the actual circumference of the globe?---------thought it was much smaller than it is.

Am I missing something here? Was everyone all that stupid, even those who thought the Earth was round?

Or is it much more difficult than it seems to figure from the distance to a horizon what the circumference of a globe is?

No mathematician I-----------So if I am missing something, please tell me.

[Sci_Fidelity]

Posted by Magus:

Since when does 4 corners of the earth mean flat? We use that kind of language today. "I would follow you to the ends of the earth" sound familiar? That in absolutely no way means flat.

Well I don't know why I bother since Magus never answers any of my questions, but here goes:

Why, then, does the flat earth society base their beliefs on a literal reading of the bible?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity
Posted by Magus:


Well I don't know why I bother since Magus never answers any of my questions, but here goes:

Why, then, does the flat earth society base their beliefs on a literal reading of the bible? [/B] Because they are doing exactly what you are doing and reading a verse, having no clue of the meaning, and saying it must mean flat, when there is no indication that it does.

[Mageth]

Here's (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) a good writeup on the flat-earth cosmology of the Bible.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
Because they are doing exactly what you are doing and reading a verse, having no clue of the meaning, and saying it must mean flat, when there is no indication that it does.

Read the article I posted, Magus. It's those that claim the Bible teaches a spherical earth that have the weakest arguments.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Matthew 4:8:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. (NIV)

Now where was this mountain?

According to JF & B commentaries:

8. Again, the devil taketh him up--"conducteth him," as before.
into--or "unto"
an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them--Luke ( Luk 4:5 ) adds the important clause, "in a moment of time"; a clause which seems to furnish a key to the true meaning. That a scene was presented to our Lord's natural eye seems plainly expressed. But to limit this to the most extensive scene which the natural eye could take in, is to give a sense to the expression, "all the kingdoms of the world," quite violent. It remains, then, to gather from the expression, "in a moment of time"-- which manifestly is intended to intimate some supernatural operation--that it was permitted to the tempter to extend preternaturally for a moment our Lord's range of vision, and throw a "glory" or glitter over the scene of vision: a thing not inconsistent with the analogy of other scriptural statements regarding the permitted operations of the wicked one. In this case, the "exceeding height" of the "mountain" from which this sight was beheld would favor the effect to be produced.

[Sci_Fidelity]

Because they are doing exactly what you are doing and reading a verse, having no clue of the meaning, and saying it must mean flat, when there is no indication that it does

But that's just the point- it CAN be interpreted that way- this is true of many verses.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Mageth
Read the article I posted, Magus. It's those that claim the Bible teaches a spherical earth that have the weakest arguments. No, actually reading that said I see many blatant errors and poor attempts at understanding scripture. They use the tree in daniel as proof of a flat earth.


Dan 4:10 Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great.

The tree was a dream, not reality. That is the dumbest attempt at proving a flat earth if i've ever seen one, when the scripture clearly shows, it was a dream, while he was sleeping. So no, the earth does not have to be flat, since the tree isn't real.

All that site goes to show is even so called Christians can read the Bible without any study or investigation and make a false claim. All they are doing is pull at straws, and making some very weak assumptions to fit their ideal.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
According to JF & B commentaries:

8. Again, the devil taketh him up--"conducteth him," as before.
into--or "unto"
an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them--Luke ( Luk 4:5 ) adds the important clause, "in a moment of time"; a clause which seems to furnish a key to the true meaning. That a scene was presented to our Lord's natural eye seems plainly expressed. But to limit this to the most extensive scene which the natural eye could take in, is to give a sense to the expression, "all the kingdoms of the world," quite violent. It remains, then, to gather from the expression, "in a moment of time"-- which manifestly is intended to intimate some supernatural operation--that it was permitted to the tempter to extend preternaturally for a moment our Lord's range of vision, and throw a "glory" or glitter over the scene of vision: a thing not inconsistent with the analogy of other scriptural statements regarding the permitted operations of the wicked one. In this case, the "exceeding height" of the "mountain" from which this sight was beheld would favor the effect to be produced.

What the hell does that mean? My moon and slide show solutions makes more sense.

[Sci_Fidelity]

All that site goes to show is even so called Christians can read the Bible without any study or investigation and make a false claim

If it were truly a perfect inspired text, this would not be possible (at least if I were god, I would have made sure of that.)

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity


If it were truly a perfect inspired text, this would not be possible (at least if I were god, I would have made sure of that.) [/B] Why would it not be possible? People will always have interpretations and opinions, no matter what the Bible says. Only through study and the Holy Spirit can one see the true meaning of the Bible.

And its a good thing you aren't God.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
No, actually reading that said I see many blatant errors and poor attempts at understanding scripture. They use the tree in daniel as proof of a flat earth.


Dan 4:10 Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great.

The tree was a dream, not reality. That is the dumbest attempt at proving a flat earth if i've ever seen one, when the scripture clearly shows, it was a dream, while he was sleeping. So no, the earth does not have to be flat, since the tree isn't real.

All that site goes to show is even so called Christians can read the Bible without any study or investigation and make a false claim. All they are doing is pull at straws, and making some very weak assumptions to fit their ideal.

Wow, that sounds familiar...

So, that's one verse of many quoted on the site. I find the verses that talk about the vault of the heavens far more interesting and revealing, personally. In any case, the Bible describes a cosmology strikingly similar to Babylonian/Egyptian cosmologies. Not surprising, since much of the myth of the Bible was "borrowed" from their mythologies.

And I'm curious: do you think believing in a flat earth would disqualify you from being a Christian?

[Sci_Fidelity]

Posted by Magus:

Why would it not be possible? People will always have interpretations and opinions, no matter what the Bible says. Only through study and the Holy Spirit can one see the true meaning of the Bible.

If you were an omnipotent god, would you not create a text that is totally unambigous? For that matter, why rely on fallible humans at all? Why not just write the thing yourself?

And its a good thing you aren't God.

Right. I wouldn't exist.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity
Posted by Magus:



If you were an omnipotent god, would you not create a text that is totally unambigous? For that matter, why rely on fallible humans at all? Why not just write the thing yourself? Because even if God wrote it himself, people would still find something to disagree with.


Right. I wouldn't exist.

Wrong, God does exist.

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
One thing is a little troubling about the intelligence of our ancestors whether theist or non-theist.

Obviously the Earth must be round or ships would not disappear beneath the horizon about 8 miles out.

Not only should it have been very obvious to any seafaring nation of antiquity with any scientists of any merit that the Earth was round. ---------It should also have been easily proven mathematically from that 8 mile horizon exactly what the circumference of the globe was.

So why were so many scientists and certainly Columbus so screwed up about the actual circumference of the globe?---------thought it was much smaller than it is.

Am I missing something here? Was everyone all that stupid, even those who thought the Earth was round?

Or is it much more difficult than it seems to figure from the distance to a horizon what the circumference of a globe is?

www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm

It seems, that some male people are satisfied, if they can assert, there were much more stupid people in the past then in present. This consciousness to be born now brings virtual knowledge without thinking hard. Clever.

[Sci_Fidelity]

Because even if God wrote it himself, people would still find something to disagree with.

How so? Is god ambiguous? Can he not write so that the text can only be interpreted one way? Isn't this really the only fair way to do it, considering the importance of the text?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a text that either says "the earth is flat" or "the earth is spherical." See what I mean? If it were divinely inspired, would there be any question?

Now, so as not to hijack this thread, back to whether the bible says the earth is flat.....

[Doctor X]

Only through study and the Holy Spirit can one see the true meaning of the Bible.

I would suggest another approach . . . since it does not seem to work.

And its a good thing you aren't God.

I am not sure of that. I imagine he would alleviate the suffering of the child.

--J.D.

[Sci_Fidelity]

See- another thread abandoned by Magus with questions left unanswered.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Doctor X
I would suggest another approach . . . since it does not seem to work.




--J.D.

Works for me and plenty of other Christians.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity


How so? Is god ambiguous? Can he not write so that the text can only be interpreted one way? Isn't this really the only fair way to do it, considering the importance of the text?

Wouldn't it be nice to have a text that either says "the earth is flat" or "the earth is spherical." See what I mean? If it were divinely inspired, would there be any question?

[/B] You aren't taking into account the language in which it was originally written. In hebrew, it probably makes perfect sense. There is no word for sphere in Hebrew, which is probably why it translated to circle in english.

[Sci_Fidelity]

Posted by Magus:

You aren't taking into account the language in which it was originally written. In hebrew, it probably makes perfect sense. There is no word for sphere in Hebrew, which is probably why it translated to circle in english.

Pity your god didn't forsee this.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Sci_Fidelity
Posted by Magus:



Pity your god didn't forsee this. [/B] Who said He didn't?

[Sci_Fidelity]

It goes back to what I said about ambiguity. An omnipotent being could ensure that the text could only be interpreted one way- regardless of how many translations it's been through.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
You aren't taking into account the language in which it was originally written. In hebrew, it probably makes perfect sense. There is no word for sphere in Hebrew, which is probably why it translated to circle in english.

Didn't we just have this conversation? The word used in the verse in question does not mean sphere. There's a word for ball in the OT Hebrew, BTW:

Isa 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee [like] a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory [shall be] the shame of thy lord's house.

The word used there is duwr, I believe. Is a ball not a sphere, and more earth-shaped than a circle?

[mark9950]

The word used there is duwr, I believe. Is a ball not a sphere, and more earth-shaped than a circle?

The earth is similar to a ball and if God created it he would have known it himself.

Magus will never realize these facts until he is on his deathbed and realized where is God?

My grandmother and grandfather asked me this question oon their deathbed.

They said where is God and why is he doing this to me?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Magus55
And its a good thing you aren't God.

Ditto for you. We don't need arrogant beings who think they're absolutely right to rule over us.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Magus55
Because even if God wrote it himself, people would still find something to disagree with.

Thank you for informing us that your god is incompetent.

[Icky]

Originally posted by Magus55
Only through study and the Holy Spirit can one see the true meaning of the Bible.

Right. Which is why spirit-filled believers have never come to blows or started new sects. Because they all understand the true meaning of the Bible.

:rolleyes:

[Doctor X]

Works for me and plenty of other Christians.

Apparently does not know the definition of "works."

--J.D.

[Tickfast]

Bible literalists that like modern science are fond of the verse where God hangs the earth on nothing...of course, they skip the rest of the verse where God 'Stretches the Earth over the void' and hangs it on nothing.
IF the Earth were understood to be a sphere, would it be described as stretched out or balled up?

God describes the creation of the Earth as spreading it out upon the surface of the waters.
Again, spread out is not the way to make speres.

The sun has a chamber where it goes at night. On a ROUND earth, the sun doesn't get the night off.

Daniel's tree is a vision, fine, but there is nothing in Jesus' trip to the mountain top to suggest it isn't a literal event. And from the mountain, they can see all the kingdoms of the earth... not possible on a flat earth.
If it is divine vision, then why bother to go to a mountain top in the first place?
They could use super x-ray god-vision to see all the nations, some from the underside.

In the verse of the 'circle of the earth' the sky is described as a tent, with the sides coming down like curtains. Is there any reason to think that the tent image is of a kind that the walls don't reach the floor?

Metaphor is a weak defense, really. Metaphors only have comparison powers between two LIKE Things.

If there were a verse that said 'the earth is as flat as a pancake,' it is a simile, but an inaccurate one. Calling it a metaphor does notchange the fact that unless we understand pancake to mean abelskivver, it's describing a flat earth.

[brighid]

Magus,

Could you please draw a sphere and then find it's four corners, then you will have the answer to your question. Good luck.

Brighid

[Magus55]

Originally posted by brighid
Magus,

Could you please draw a sphere and then find it's four corners, then you will have the answer to your question. Good luck.

Brighid North South East and West. This is the dumbest argument EVER for a flat Earth. People say the four corners of the Earth in daily language. I just heard it on TV a few days ago. Ever heard the phrase, I would follow you to the ends of the Earth? Since when does the Earth have ends? Please come up with something better.

[brighid]

North South East and West

These are not CORNERS, these are directions. They are points on a sphere (or on a compass) but they are NOT corners. A sphere cannot have corners. Look at the room around you, notice the corners and the shape of the room ... then go and find a ball and tell me where the corners are. Where are the corners Magus?

Perhaps a refresher course in geometry would be helpful.

Brighid

[brighid]

I would follow you to the ends of the Earth? Since when does the Earth have ends? Please come up with something better.

Sure, I have heard that phrase and given that the Earth actually does have an end I don't see any problem with that phrase. Obviously that end is not in a linear sense but the Earth is finite and therefore, has an end. Furthermore, I don't believe that phrase is divinely inspired and deemed accurate such as the words in the Bible describing the four corners of the Earth (and the pillars holding up the firmament). The two cannot be equitably compared.

Now, if you could please demonstrate the corners that exist within a sphere I would appreciate it.

B

[demoninho]

Originally posted by Magus55
North South East and West. This is the dumbest argument EVER for a flat Earth. People say the four corners of the Earth in daily language. I just heard it on TV a few days ago. Ever heard the phrase, I would follow you to the ends of the Earth? Since when does the Earth have ends? Please come up with something better.

It just shows the biblical expression made it to the english day to day expressions and people still use them but not in a literal sense but figurative.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by demoninho
It just shows the biblical expression made it to the english day to day expressions and people still use them but not in a literal sense but figurative. And who ever said the mention of the four corners of the Earth in the Bible is literal? That is still a terrible excuse of the Bible's fallibility and support of a flat Earth.

In Hebrew, "four corners of the Earth", means wings or ends of the Earth. And Brighid just said the Earth does have ends, therefore it isn't an error.

[mark9950]

And Brighid just said the Earth does have ends, therefore it isn't an error.

The earth also has a solid sky dome that where the windows of heaven lets the water in too, right?

[Tickfast]

Flat Earth Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)

Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology (http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml)

[EGGO]

Originally posted by Magus55
And who ever said the mention of the four corners of the Earth in the Bible is literal? That is still a terrible excuse of the Bible's fallibility and support of a flat Earth.

In Hebrew, "four corners of the Earth", means wings or ends of the Earth. And Brighid just said the Earth does have ends, therefore it isn't an error.

cor·ner-
n.

The position at which two lines, surfaces, or edges meet and form an angle: the four corners of a rectangle.

What are you talking about the bible goes figurative? North, South, East, and West are directions (as already pointed out).

Trust me, look anywhere and everywhere and you won't find it says those are corners. You lost that argument.

How can you also say it's a terrible excuse for support of a flat Earth? It seems great enough to people who pray to God and say that he answers back. Evidently, he doesn't correct them about this does he?

God: Yes...I shall answer your prayers. You should take door #1. Oh and uhh...just to let you know...you got a few ideas wrong in my book, the err...Earth is not...flat and...

"To the ends of the Earth", I may be incorrect, but I kind of doubt it. What Magus describes is "end". When I was a kid, I always went for the dictionary meaning (I loved that book when I was a kid)


ends
v. tr.
To bring to a conclusion.

Like "I'll follow you until the Earth ends" and then I went into it more figuratively, much like how one uses the word "soul" for romance (since this saying is obviously used for romance).

However, the Bible not only says this once, but from what I read in both secular AND christian sites, it repeats itself many times in different books and chapters. And it's generally not saying the same thing over and over again (i.e. there is no variation really of "I'll follow you to the ends of the Earth") rather, it says the same thing with different kinds of evidence stating it is flat.

Magus, I've yet to see you truly answer the four corners thing. I'll be waiting for that.

In Hebrew, "four corners of the Earth", means wings or ends of the Earth.

So now the earth has wings? No, there literally is no 'end' of the Earth unless of course you're flying off of it at a tangent to talk about it in a linear sense. What brighid may mean about the earth ending is showing how it's finite.
You don't see earth being infinate. When you see a picture of the Earth, you clearly see where it ends and space begins.

What about that dome thing I heard about? Care to clarify? Since of course I shouldn't be taking it into a literal sense, there must be some figurative meaning behind it, as does ALL errors in the Bible are.

That may sound confusing, but I'm all for clearing it up if need be.

[brighid]

In Hebrew, "four corners of the Earth", means wings or ends of the Earth. And Brighid just said the Earth does have ends, therefore it isn't an error.

No, I did not say it has "ENDS"(like in book ends), but rather that the Earth is finite and therefore ends.

I think the others have done a fine job with regard to the wings the Earth has, etc.

So which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical? Does one simply get to pick and chose? Do the ones that fit your belief system get to be literal, I mean if that is metaphorical why not the Ressurection, or anything else that is taken to be "literal"? It seems to me that Jesus wasn't literal either, but rather a fictional character used to put forth a human made message!

Is there a point in Genesis where God tells you that it is only a metaphorical story he is telling? Did I miss that?

Brighid

[lpetrich]

The "four corners of the Earth" are in the Book of Revelation, which was originally written in Greek, like the rest of the New Testament. Here is the appropriate verse (Rev 7:1, NIV):

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

This seems like a rather literal use of "four corners"; there is an angel at each one who holds back a wind -- one for each angel.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by brighid
No, I did not say it has "ENDS"(like in book ends), but rather that the Earth is finite and therefore ends.

I think the others have done a fine job with regard to the wings the Earth has, etc.

So which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical? Does one simply get to pick and chose? Do the ones that fit your belief system get to be literal, I mean if that is metaphorical why not the Ressurection, or anything else that is taken to be "literal"? It seems to me that Jesus wasn't literal either, but rather a fictional character used to put forth a human made message!

Is there a point in Genesis where God tells you that it is only a metaphorical story he is telling? Did I miss that?

Brighid

In regard to "ends", you should have clarified. We were discussing the "4 corners" so what does that have to do with the Earth being finite? The Earth may not have a linear end, as you put it, but there is a point at which the Earth and Space meet ( well i should say the atmosphere and space meet). The phrase 4 corners of the Earth is used in daily english. Does that mean anyone that uses that phrase doesn't know the Earth is round?

Now to your point of what int he Bible is figurative and whats literal. Studying the hebrew, context, culture etc. shows us. The language and culture of the Bible is studied all the time, and has been for thousands of years. Revelation for example, is one big vision. The majority of it is figurative, because it isn't a literal account of what happened. The ressurection on the other hand, is an eyewitness account of Jesus rising from the dead. It isn't intended to be figurative, its intended to be literal because thats what the Apostles saw first hand.

[brighid]

In regard to "ends", you should have clarified. We were discussing the "4 corners" so what does that have to do with the Earth being finite? The Earth may not have a linear end, as you put it, but there is a point at which the Earth and Space meet ( well i should say the atmosphere and space meet). The phrase 4 corners of the Earth is used in daily english. Does that mean anyone that uses that phrase doesn't know the Earth is round?

Perhaps you could go back and read that exchange. I did not change much of anything with further explanation. So have you been able to draw those four corners in your sphere yet?

The Earth being finite is directly relevant to it ending, and yes space beginning at a point beyond the Earth.

Certainly that phrase is used in normal English speaking conversations, but we aren't talking about day to day conversations between people such as you and I. We are talking about the Bibble and last I checked it wasn't written in English prior to what the 16th century or so ... and lpetrich quoted the bible passage that mentions it ... so let's get down to business. If God was revealing some truth about the world and it's future to the writer of Revelation why would this person (at a time when the Earth was believed to be linear and flat) chose to (or not if God is directing him) to say in a very literal sense "four corners" of the Earth (when in fact it is a sphere and has no corners)?


Well, the Gospel accounts seem to differ on many points and they weren't written by the actual Apostles, you do know that? So they aren't actually a first hand account of anything. They are alleged to be a first hand account, but given that they were written 70+ years after Jesus allegedly died, et al. it seems highly UNLIKELY that those who allegedly saw this event wrote those books, but rather they were simply replicating an oral history.

Ever play telephone? What do you think 70 + years does to a game of telephone?

What about Paul's visions of Jesus? Are visions not literal happenings? Or are they hallucinations? Should anyone base their belief systems on metaphorical, and possibly hallucinatory "visons"?

So, how about those corners on that sphere?

Brighid

[Doctor X]

Brighid:

So which parts of the Bible are literal. . . ?

The ones he agrees with.

. . . and which ones are metaphorical?

The ones he disagrees with or have errors he can comprehend.

Has the Hubble Telescope found those chambers that store the waters for the flood yet?

--J.D.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by brighid
Perhaps you could go back and read that exchange. I did not change much of anything with further explanation. So have you been able to draw those four corners in your sphere yet?

The Earth being finite is directly relevant to it ending, and yes space beginning at a point beyond the Earth.

Certainly that phrase is used in normal English speaking conversations, but we aren't talking about day to day conversations between people such as you and I. We are talking about the Bibble and last I checked it wasn't written in English prior to what the 16th century or so ... and lpetrich quoted the bible passage that mentions it ... so let's get down to business. If God was revealing some truth about the world and it's future to the writer of Revelation why would this person (at a time when the Earth was believed to be linear and flat) chose to (or not if God is directing him) to say in a very literal sense "four corners" of the Earth (when in fact it is a sphere and has no corners)?


Well, the Gospel accounts seem to differ on many points and they weren't written by the actual Apostles, you do know that? So they aren't actually a first hand account of anything. They are alleged to be a first hand account, but given that they were written 70+ years after Jesus allegedly died, et al. it seems highly UNLIKELY that those who allegedly saw this event wrote those books, but rather they were simply replicating an oral history.

Ever play telephone? What do you think 70 + years does to a game of telephone?

What about Paul's visions of Jesus? Are visions not literal happenings? Or are they hallucinations? Should anyone base their belief systems on metaphorical, and possibly hallucinatory "visons"?

So, how about those corners on that sphere?

Brighid How do you figure the remarks about the "4 corners" are very literal? The two mentions of it are in Isaiah, which is predominately a book of prophecy so there is bound to be metaphorical language there, and Revelation - one big apocolyptic vision. The context that the phrase was written it doesn't lend itself well to the idea of being written "very" literal. Did you live 2000 years ago? Do you know what how language and culture spoke and worked back then? Couldn't the phrase "4 corners" of the Earth been used metaphorically back then, just like it is today? I don't see how this is any evidence whatsoever that the Biblical authors actually believed the Earth was flat. In the context its written, it means a distant expanse of the Earth. Travelling to the far reaches of the Earth. All that means is far away from the place the person in the verse is at. The phrase worked the same way back then as it does now based on the context.

And anyway, lets assume the authors did believe the Earth was flat. Now, from all pictures that atheists like to post showing what the Earth would look like from a superficial reading of the Bible ( Mark9950), the Earth is a flat, round disc. Last I checked, a circular disk, even if flat, doesn't have corners either.

Reading the verses again, I see no problem with it at all. It reads to me just like If i opened up a modern novel that used that phrase. I think you are making too big a deal out of something so trivial. You have presented ZERO evidence that the Bible states the Earth is flat. There is not a single verse in the Bible that actually says "the earth is flat", you are just using your agenda of disproving the Bible and taking any verse that speaks metaphorically or figuratively, and giving your opinion that the Bible is wrong.



Where did you get 70 years from? The only book that is considered by scholars to be almost that old is Revelation. The Youngest being the letters of Paul, about 20 years after Jesus' death. I'm well aware that not all of the Gospels were written by the Apostles. That means nothing. They were still written under the direction of the Apostles since they were still alive when the Bible was written.


Brighid, let me ask you. Is there a particular reason you are trying to show the Bible authors thought the world was flat? What agenda do you have? Do you expect to deconvert me? Are you trying to prove something to me? I've been on this board a long time now and atheists have yet to change my views on an innerant Bible, so why are you making such a big deal out of it? You've already rejected God, you've already declared the Bible is fake. Now why do you continue to bring up points that have been brought up over and over, and are meaningless? What are you trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to?

[Mageth]

Where did you get 70 years from? The only book that is considered by scholars to be almost that old is Revelation.

Many if not most Biblical scholars think the earliest of the Gospels was written no earlier than 70 CE - about 40 years after the alleged events they describe.

They were still written under the direction of the Apostles since they were still alive when the Bible was written.

Sources/evidence for this assertion? I thought they were all getting martyred for their beliefs in the meantime - isn't that what you have claimed before, that they were all martyred for their beliefs?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Mageth
They were still written under the direction of the Apostles since they were still alive when the Bible was written.

Sources/evidence for this assertion? I thought they were all getting martyred for their beliefs in the meantime - isn't that what you have claimed before, that they were all martyred for their beliefs?

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

One reason that the Gospels had to have been written before 70 A.D were, Jesus prophecised the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which extra-biblical evidence proves happened in 70 A.D. If the Gospels were written later, the destruction of the temple would have been documented.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

One reason that the Gospels had to have been written before 70 A.D were, Jesus prophecised the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which extra-biblical evidence proves happened in 70 A.D. If the Gospels were written later, the destruction of the temple would have been documented.

I don't quite grok that convoluted logic. Care to explain?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Mageth
I don't quite grok that convoluted logic. Care to explain? Did you not read the link?

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
Did you not read the link?

Yes, and I didn't grok the convoluted logic there, either.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Mageth
Yes, and I didn't grok the convoluted logic there, either. What kind of convoluted logic? If the leader you followed claimed to be God, then prophecised the destruction of a sacred temple ( a very important building of the time), don't you think you would write it down? Failure of the Apostles to write down the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, had it happened before they wrote the Gospels, would be like the media not bothering to cover the collapse of the world Trade centers on 9/11.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Magus55
What kind of convoluted logic? If the leader you followed claimed to be God, then prophecised the destruction of a sacred temple ( a very important building of the time), don't you think you would write it down?

The convoluted logic that says that, because the gospels don't record the destruction of the temple, that they were obviously written before the destruction of the temple.

For one thing, the gospels are alleged to be accounts of Jesus' life, and end at his crucifixion and/or ascention. You wouldn't expect the authors to include the destruction of the temple, some 40 years later, whenever they were written.

For another thing, it's just as, or more likely, evidence that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple, with the alleged "prophecy" of Jesus added to give him credibility.

[demoninho]

nevermind, can't delete myself.....

[Doctor X]

Since we are waving strawmen scholars about . . . most scholars date the texts after the fall because of the prophecy. It is a rather common thing for followers to claim that their figure predicted things after the fact.

The drive to date the texts prior to the fall of Jerusalem comes from the realization that the late date argues strongly, in and of itself, against the texts reflecting the views of followers who actually "were there."

--J.D.

[Mageth]

Also note that I don't think John records the temple "prophecy" at all, for what that's worth.

[Amos]

But the temple was the construct of Judaism and why would Catholics rebuilt that in the Gospel of John?

If you take the four Gospels in this transition (from Judaism to Catholicism) it is easy to see why they would not rebuilt the temple. I mean, they went to the ends of the world to find heaven for their followers and so I don't think that it would be very smart to try and drag the old world of Judaism into heaven.

BTW Did Jonah not find heaven when he reached the end of his world?

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by brighid
No, I did not say it has "ENDS"(like in book ends), but rather that the Earth is finite and therefore ends.

I think the others have done a fine job with regard to the wings the Earth has, etc.

So which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical? Does one simply get to pick and chose? Do the ones that fit your belief system get to be literal, I mean if that is metaphorical why not the Ressurection, or anything else that is taken to be "literal"? It seems to me that Jesus wasn't literal either, but rather a fictional character used to put forth a human made message!

Is there a point in Genesis where God tells you that it is only a metaphorical story he is telling? Did I miss that?

Brighid

sorry, brighid but the earth does not have an end. take any direction and one can travel forever. I mention this because it is a common analogy for the expanding universe. much as an ant travels on the outside of the balloon that is being blown up and will never reach an end, the unierse is a four d balloon blown up through time.


anyway, I hope I wasnt too terribly confusing, but the earth has no ends in any directional sense.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Amos


BTW Did Jonah not find heaven when he reached the end of his world?

being an atheist, I am going to go with a no.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Magus55
How do you figure the remarks about the "4 corners" are very literal? The two mentions of it are in Isaiah, which is predominately a book of prophecy so there is bound to be metaphorical language there, and Revelation - one big apocolyptic vision. The context that the phrase was written it doesn't lend itself well to the idea of being written "very" literal. Did you live 2000 years ago? Do you know what how language and culture spoke and worked back then? Couldn't the phrase "4 corners" of the Earth been used metaphorically back then, just like it is today? I don't see how this is any evidence whatsoever that the Biblical authors actually believed the Earth was flat. In the context its written, it means a distant expanse of the Earth. Travelling to the far reaches of the Earth. All that means is far away from the place the person in the verse is at. The phrase worked the same way back then as it does now based on the context.


Maybe you dont understand the burden of proof, you have a positive claim concerning god. perhaps we have a positive claim that the authors of the bible believed in a flat earth. we have provided evidence of this belief. you have failed to respond in any meaningful way. I dont count your hand wringing and excuse making. if you believe the bible inerrant you need to make a proof for why this flat earth evidence doesnt count as an error in your bible. If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical. If you are going to make a claim that all the many references to flat earth, corners, seeing the whole world, chambers for the flood waters, and the dome of the heavens are figures of speech, than you need to provide evidence that writers of those times used these literary devices commonly. and finally, after that proof, you need to explain the heliocentric, church sanctioned veiw of the universe and why is it that in 40 ad people knew the earth wasnt flat but in 1300 ad people didnt.


I anxiosly await any evidence at all, perhaps the first you will have offered in this thread.

[mark9950]

If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical.

Magus explained it God is a methophor and metaphors as entities do not exist,simple as that.

Lucifer does not exist either,but lucifer is named after the luciferians not a entity with horns and a pitchfork living in a place called hell.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44989&highlight=luciferians

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
Maybe you dont understand the burden of proof, you have a positive claim concerning god. perhaps we have a positive claim that the authors of the bible believed in a flat earth. we have provided evidence of this belief. you have failed to respond in any meaningful way. I dont count your hand wringing and excuse making. if you believe the bible inerrant you need to make a proof for why this flat earth evidence doesnt count as an error in your bible. If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical. If you are going to make a claim that all the many references to flat earth, corners, seeing the whole world, chambers for the flood waters, and the dome of the heavens are figures of speech, than you need to provide evidence that writers of those times used these literary devices commonly. and finally, after that proof, you need to explain the heliocentric, church sanctioned veiw of the universe and why is it that in 40 ad people knew the earth wasnt flat but in 1300 ad people didnt.


I anxiosly await any evidence at all, perhaps the first you will have offered in this thread. Um excuse me, you presented evidence for a flat Earth? Pulling a verse randomly out of the Bible and saying, THIS MEANS FLAT EARTH, HAHA! isn't evidence. Until you can show me a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat, you have no evidence and I have nothing to prove.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
being an atheist, I am going to go with a no.

So did Jonah, and he was also 'running' away from God.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Magus55
Um excuse me, you presented evidence for a flat Earth? Pulling a verse randomly out of the Bible and saying, THIS MEANS FLAT EARTH, HAHA! isn't evidence. Until you can show me a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat, you have no evidence and I have nothing to prove.

I am guessing that there is some sort of reading comprehension issue here.

If I tell you that Jesus took the elevator from the lobby to the third floor. what conclusions can you draw?

well, in your case I am guessing none.

But I could safely conclude that Jesus was inside a buiilding, got inside an elevator, and the elevator went up to the third floor.


see similar for something to have four corners, its gots to be flat. see how this works, now why dont you give it a try?

[EGGO]

Magus, what geometric shape(s) has/have 4 corners?

We can go for the easy answer of a quadrilateral.

Any other geometric shapes that has 4 corners, thought, that still retains the properties of a circle?

Please, by all means, draw it. And while you're at it, draw me a spherical cube too.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Beyelzu


see similar for something to have four corners, its gots to be flat. see how this works, now why dont you give it a try? Well then I guess any human in history that has used the phrase "ends of the earth", or "4 corners of the earth", must be part of the flat earth society. Saying 4 corners of the earth DOES NOT prove the bible meant it literally. And as I pointed out before, even if the hebrews thought the Earth was flat, it would have been circular, not a square. Circles still don't have corners, so sorry, your argument fails.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
Magus, what geometric shape(s) has/have 4 corners?

We can go for the easy answer of a quadrilateral.

Any other geometric shapes that has 4 corners, thought, that still retains the properties of a circle?

Please, by all means, draw it. And while you're at it, draw me a spherical cube too. What are you talking about? The Hebrews never thought the Earth was a square.

[EGGO]

Originally posted by Magus55
What are you talking about? The Hebrews never thought the Earth was a square.

Did you read me correctly? In black and white, I said quadrillateral. I never said anything about a square (nitpicking).

They said 4 corners. What else could that be other than a quadrilateral?

[edit]

And as I pointed out before, even if the hebrews thought the Earth was flat, it would have been circular, not a square. Circles still don't have corners, so sorry, your argument fails.

Okay, so you just admitted that now they say the earth is flat? And now you're even concreting our side of the argument. It's not a circle, you're proving to us more than ever it's a quadrilateral.

[Bede]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
you need to explain the heliocentric, church sanctioned veiw of the universe and why is it that in 40 ad people knew the earth wasnt flat but in 1300 ad people didnt.

What are you talking about?

In 40AD, literate people knew the earth was a sphere and they still knew it in 1300AD. And the pagan Greek cosmology, which the church adopted was geocentric not heliocentric. A heliocentric model was first properly worked out by a Catholic parson in the early sixteenth century and it took Christians to overthrow the Greek view.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
Did you read me correctly? In black and white, I said quadrillateral. I never said anything about a square (nitpicking).

They said 4 corners. What else could that be other than a quadrilateral?/gasp, it could be figurative/metaphorical!





Okay, so you just admitted that now they say the earth is flat? And now you're even concreting our side of the argument. It's not a circle, you're proving to us more than ever it's a quadrilateral. No, I did not say they thought the Earth was flat, i said IF

[Doctor X]

"That which I like is 'literal.' That which I do not like is 'allegorical.'"

And we are right,
I think you'll say,
To argue in this kind of way.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right -- too-loo-ral-lay!

--J.D.

All prosy dull society sinners,
Who chatter and bleat and bore,
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four.

[EGGO]

Originally posted by Magus55
No, I did not say they thought the Earth was flat, i said IF

Hrm...yeah you're right. Sorry I misread.

Tell me how the 4 corners is metephorical though.

[NOGO]

Bede
What are you talking about?

In 40AD, literate people knew the earth was a sphere and they still knew it in 1300AD. And the pagan Greek cosmology, which the church adopted was geocentric not heliocentric. A heliocentric model was first properly worked out by a Catholic parson in the early sixteenth century and it took Christians to overthrow the Greek view.


The question is .... what are you talking about?

In 40 AD not all people knew that the earth was a sphere.
Most believed the earth to be flat.
It is a bit like evolution. We know about evolution but many people believe in creation, Bible style.

The Greeks were the first to discover that the earth was a sphere.
The Hebrews, inspired by their Bible, believed that the earth was flat much as the book of Enoch describes.

Christian did away with all that Greeks had discovered in areas of chemistry, astronomy, math, and others. They had no need of all that. Christ's salvation is all they needed.

Lucky for us, Christians were reintroduced to Greek knowledge 1000 years later, thanks to the Muslims who contrary to Christian preserved this knowledge.

Copernicus was Catholic. In the 16th century everybody in Europe was Christian. So what?

If Copernicus read his Bible he would know that the earth was flat and the centre of the world that Yahweh created.

Nothing in Christianity help Copernicus do what he did.
Copernicus' contributribution was to realize that much of the celestial movement that we see is due to the earth movements, that is, movement around the sun and around itself. He then used the same knowledge and techniques that the Greek Ptolemy had more than a 1000 years beforehand.

Copernicus, Kepler and the rest could not have done anything without the Greeks. It was the Greeks who setup the foundations for math and astronomy while the Hebrews were totally absorbed by their myths.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
Hrm...yeah you're right. Sorry I misread.

Tell me how the 4 corners is metephorical though. The same way it is metaphorical in today's language. Surely you have heard people use that phrase, or something similar like "to the ends of the Earth".

[EGGO]

Not corners. I don't think anybody can ever see that as metaphorical ever.

Are you telling me that they said such things back then? "I'll follow you to the ends of the earth?"

Because definately, corners can never cut it.
"Let's go to the corners of the earth"
Nope, not workin for my head. Anybody else's?

"And the corners of the earth collapsed"
Still nothing in a 'figurative' sense...

"And the angels were seen on all 4 corners of the earth"
What? No, how is that figurative?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
Not corners. I don't think anybody can ever see that as metaphorical ever.

Are you telling me that they said such things back then? "I'll follow you to the ends of the earth?"

Because definately, corners can never cut it.
"Let's go to the corners of the earth"
Nope, not workin for my head. Anybody else's?

"And the corners of the earth collapsed"
Still nothing in a 'figurative' sense...

"And the angels were seen on all 4 corners of the earth"
What? No, how is that figurative? "And they traveled to the 4 corners of the Earth" Sounds just like great distances to me. How would you convey traveling to the farthest distances of the Earth?

[EGGO]

"They travelled far and wide". I know I've seen that more than what you said.

So how do you know it's figurative speech? We're still all waiting on the "rules of the book" when it's spoken in a figurative sense, and in a literal sense. If you read what you say is figurative and literal, it really sounds like you're trying your best to make up any excuse to keep the bible alive in your heart.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by EGGO
"They travelled far and wide". I know I've seen that more than what you said.

So how do you know it's figurative speech? We're still all waiting on the "rules of the book" when it's spoken in a figurative sense, and in a literal sense. If you read what you say is figurative and literal, it really sounds like you're trying your best to make up any excuse to keep the bible alive in your heart. Context. Figurative and literal understanding is based on the context in which the verse is written.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Bede
What are you talking about?

In 40AD, literate people knew the earth was a sphere and they still knew it in 1300AD. And the pagan Greek cosmology, which the church adopted was geocentric not heliocentric. A heliocentric model was first properly worked out by a Catholic parson in the early sixteenth century and it took Christians to overthrow the Greek view.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

I meant geocentric but had a brain fart. the rest of the post stands



as to the round earth, got any proof about all these people who knew it was round in 40 ad???

[demoninho]

The first heliocentric model was proposed somewhere around 270 bC by a Greek working in Alexandria IIRC his idea didn't really catch on though and was forgotten . Aristarchus according to wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus)

[Bede]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
as to the round earth, got any proof about all these people who knew it was round in 40 ad???

Literate people is what I said. This subject has been done to death on these boards. The fact the earth was a sphere was realised before Aristotle and accepted by every literate person in the Mediterrean basin by 40AD. It continued to be accepted (with very few exceptions - we know of one) by all literate Europeans from then on.

Try this: The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm)

or this from a noted scholar: Russell on the Flat Earth (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Bede]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
as to the round earth, got any proof about all these people who knew it was round in 40 ad???

Literate people is what I said. This subject has been done to death on these boards. The fact the earth was a sphere was realised before Aristotle and accepted by every literate person in the Mediterrean basin by 40AD. It continued to be accepted (with very few exceptions - we know of one) by all literate Europeans from then on.

Try this: The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm)

or this from a noted scholar: Russell on the Flat Earth (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Bede]

Nogo,

Have you really learnt nothing in all our discussions? I can take your still being stuck on Galileo but the fact you are still preaching the flat earth myth is just depressing.

In 40 AD not all people knew that the earth was a sphere.
The Greeks were the first to discover that the earth was a sphere.

I said literate people and I was right.

The Hebrews, inspired by their Bible, believed that the earth was flat much as the book of Enoch describes.

The hebrews wrote their bible - they weren't just inspired by it. I am happy to accept that they believed the earth was flat as their literature outside the bible shows. But gentiles knew the earth was a sphere and this includes Christians. Beyelzu's point was that literate people in 40AD did know the Earth was a sphere (correct) but he falsely believed people in the Middle Ages thought it was flat. I have shown him that he is wrong.

Christian did away with all that Greeks had discovered in areas of chemistry, astronomy, math, and others. They had no need of all that. Christ's salvation is all they needed.

This is utter crap Nogo. The reason this Greek work survived was because Christians preserved it. How many times do I have to make this point? Here, again, is the article on the Survival of Pagan Literature (http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm).

Lucky for us, Christians were reintroduced to Greek knowledge 1000 years later, thanks to the Muslims who contrary to Christian preserved this knowledge.

Nope. The Arabs preserved stuff in arabic translation. The originals were preserved in Christian Byzantium.

Copernicus was Catholic. In the 16th century everybody in Europe was Christian. So what?

So that meant the metaphysical environment was condusive to science. This is why modern science arose there and not in China, India, Islam Japan or Ancient Greece.

If Copernicus read his Bible he would know that the earth was flat and the centre of the world that Yahweh created. Nothing in Christianity help Copernicus do what he did.
Copernicus' contributribution was to realize that much of the celestial movement that we see is due to the earth movements, that is, movement around the sun and around itself. He then used the same knowledge and techniques that the Greek Ptolemy had more than a 1000 years beforehand.

Read this about Copernicus: Copernicus and his Revolutions (http://www.bede.org.uk/copernicus.htm). As you have read no scholarshiop at all I am surprised you feel able to make such sweeping statements.

Copernicus, Kepler and the rest could not have done anything without the Greeks. It was the Greeks who setup the foundations for math and astronomy while the Hebrews were totally absorbed by their myths.

Which is why Christians and not ancient Greeks produced modern science? Sorry Nogo, but you need Christianity and Greek philosophy in order to have modern science. You can't dump on religion as without it we would still be in the Middle Ages.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[NOGO]

Bede
Have you really learnt nothing in all our discussions? I can take your still being stuck on Galileo but the fact you are still preaching the flat earth myth is just depressing.


You bore me.



I said literate people and I was right.


Most Rabbis that I know are literate. In 40 Ad I would be surprized if they believed that the earth was a sphere thus contradicting the Bible.



NOGO
The Hebrews, inspired by their Bible, believed that the earth was flat much as the book of Enoch describes.

Bede:
The hebrews wrote their bible - they weren't just inspired by it. I am happy to accept that they believed the earth was flat as their literature outside the bible shows. But gentiles knew the earth was a sphere and this includes Christians. Beyelzu's point was that literate people in 40AD did know the Earth was a sphere (correct) but he falsely believed people in the Middle Ages thought it was flat. I have shown him that he is wrong.


In 40 AD Hebrews were inspired by their Bible. Their ancesters wrote it. It is not just the literature outside the Bible which shows that they believed the earth to be flat, the Bible says so as well.


Bede
Nope. The Arabs preserved stuff in arabic translation. The originals were preserved in Christian Byzantium.


Sure and that is why it was reintroduced in Europe through the Arabs.


Bede
So that meant the metaphysical environment was condusive to science. This is why modern science arose there and not in China, India, Islam Japan or Ancient Greece.


Nonsense!
Religious myth is not condusive to science. When are you going to learn. I gave you a good example which I will repeat at the end for your benefit.


Bede
Read this about Copernicus: Copernicus and his Revolutions. As you have read no scholarshiop at all I am surprised you feel able to make such sweeping statements.


I have discussed Copernicus with you before. It was clear to me that you had no idea of what Copernicus did.


Bede
Which is why Christians and not ancient Greeks produced modern science? Sorry Nogo, but you need Christianity and Greek philosophy in order to have modern science. You can't dump on religion as without it we would still be in the Middle Ages.


edited

One day as he was teaching about the five geometric shapes Kepler has a brilliant idea. He made a connection - five shapes - five planets. He believed that God had revealed the secret working of the universe. Kepler tried to fit the five shapes between the planet orbits without success. He published a paper on the subject.

He then went to work for Tycho. After Tycho's death in 1601 Kepler obtained access to all of his data. Thanks to Tycho who insisted that you had to start with data and develop theory after Kepler did some real science. But when it was all done and after he had discovered the three laws of planetary motions Kepler returned to the five shapes and worked on this ridiculous idea for the rest of his life.

Why?

I submit that the religious man put revelation first above putting data to mathematical curves. These two things have nothing to do with each other. One can NEVER lead to the other. It's that simple. One is made of dreams while the other is made of hard work.

edited

[Bede]

Looking back we seem to have gone off on a tangent a bit. Oddly, NOGO and I are actually in agreement now on the flat earth business.

I do agree that the writers of the Old Testament thought the earth was flat. I further agree that the Bible itself does imply this. I suppose some of the small number of literate Jews in 40AD may have believed this too although literate gentiles at the time did not (and neither did some Jews like Philo). Come the Middle Ages, of course, hardly anyone thought the earth was flat despite what the bible seems to imply, which shows that they did not feel they needed to take it completely literally.

So, I'm on the side of the devils when it comes to the biblical cosmology of the OT.

On Copernicus, I'm opening new thread. Nogo's comments on how I can't think straight are beneath contempt and I will silently pass over them.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by NOGO
edited

Instead of straightforwardly insulting others here, i invite you to come to Philosophy and offer an argument as to why Christianity results in an inability to correctly consider the history and philosophy of science. Alternatively, you could try another forum and explain in cognitive or other terms why this regretable situation occurs.

[NOGO]

Bede
Nogo's comments on how I can't think straight are beneath contempt and I will silently pass over them.


Too late for "silently pass over them" since you have qualified them already.

Bede here is dressing himself up in white and pure clothing.

He can certainly give it ... but can't take it.

Here are some of his quotes.


Bede
NOGO, you are so full of shit. You had never even heard of the Formula of Concorde until you read <a href="http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html" target="_blank">this site</a> which comes top of a Google search for Kepler.

Posted Oct 15 2002 7:08 pm



Bede
NOGO's stupidity has bored me, so I'll be leaving off this thread. I think you too need to read some up to date history of science before you pontificate about it.

Posted Oct 16 2002 6:00 pm


I did not complain to the moderator as Bede as done here.
The advantage is that I can now quote it.

Here is some of the conversation which got me these insults

I stated that Erathosthenes method in evaluating the earth's circumference was correct but his measurements were not accurate. Bede did not seem to understand this so I stated that it showed that he was outside his field.


Bede
Wrong again - and I am well inside my field. His method involved walking about a hundred miles and pacing it out. Of course his answer was a fluke and it is remembered for happening to be close. Better methods (like calculating the distance for a tall object to disappear over the horizon) produced poorer results because they were not so lucky. That Erastothenes had a rational method matters little as it was so impractical.



NOGO
You don't know what you are talking about. His means of measurements were crude but his formulation of the problem was entirely correct. This is from memory ...
His basic premise was that the earth was a sphere. He then proceeded to measure a distance and the angular difference (sun at noon) which this distance gave. He assumed that the sun's rays were parallel. He then used a simple geometrical formula which relates pairs of congruent triangles.

As I said we can reproduce his method even today. The method is sound. the measurements were crude.
The method shows understanding and is what matters here. The method is what science is all about. Got that, Bede.

[Bede]

Just for the record, I didn't complain to the moderator on this occasion.

B

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Bede
Literate people is what I said. This subject has been done to death on these boards. The fact the earth was a sphere was realised before Aristotle and accepted by every literate person in the Mediterrean basin by 40AD. It continued to be accepted (with very few exceptions - we know of one) by all literate Europeans from then on.

Try this: The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm)

or this from a noted scholar: Russell on the Flat Earth (http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Seems pretty convincing, I am not so sure about the persecution angle however.

[NOGO]

Beyelzu
Seems pretty convincing, I am not so sure about the persecution angle however.


You must be suspicious of anything you read from Bede's site.
What Bede does not tell you is that maps throughout the middle ages were all made from a flat earth perspective.

Jerusalem was believed to be the centre of the earth ... the flat earth. The very word Mediterranean said it all. The word comes from "Medi" middle and "Terra" earth.

I presume here that people who made maps were literate.

So Bede's statement that all literate people knew that the earth was a shpere is just nonse.

Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society ?
Perhaps they were all illiterate.

Have you ever head of "Antipodes" ?
The idea that on the opposite side of the spherical earth there were people. Before the modern era they argued that you cannot have people going about with their heads down and their feet up. Hard to argue against this when Newton had not formulated his theory of gravity yet.

People did not believe that the earth was in "space" like the other planets. This was the main problem they had with the Copernican theory. Copernicus had sent the earth travelling through space ... The basic belief was that the earth was stationary and there was an up and there was a down. Even if some believed that the earth was a sphere the context was the same as the flat earth in the Bible. There was the earth and then there were the heavens. The earth was not a heavenly body.