Individuality, by Robert Green Ingersoll

[rubytigga85]

Individuality (1873)
Robert Green Ingersoll
"HIS SOUL WAS LIKE A STAR AND DWELT APART


HELLO,

MY NAME IS RACHEAL CLARKE, I AM 17 YEARS OLD. THIS PIECE OF WRITING WAS TOTALLY HORRIBLE. HOW DARE SOMONE PUT DOWN THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH WITHOUT DOING EXTENSIVE RESEARCH FIRST. THE PART THAT SAY CHRISTIANS THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS FLAT IS INCORRECT. IF YOU CHECK IN THE BIBLE YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE REFERENCES TO A ROUND EARTH. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SOUNDING IGNORANT, GO AND RESEARCH.

[-DM-]

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding Individuality (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/individuality.html) by Robert Green Ingersoll. (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml)

Ingersoll has been dead, of course, for more than 100 years. Obviously, he won't be able to respond for himself so I will make a comment or two.

--

Regarding biblical research and what the Bible has to say about the earth, the picture it paints is quite confused if you look at more than one verse:

* It allegedly has a foundation: Job 38.4, Psalms 104.5
* It allegedly has supporting pillars: 1 Sam 2.8
* It allegedly has four corners: Isa 11.12, Rev 7.1
* It can allegedly be turned upside down: Isa 24.1
* It is apparently flat enough that a tall tree can be seen everywhere: Dan 4.11
* It is apparently flat enough that all its kingdoms can be seen from a very tall mountain: Mt 4.8
* It is allegedly a circle Isa 40.22 [in reality, it is a sphere]

--

Regarding a flat earth, please note that Ingersoll used a quote attributed to Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), the Portuguese and Spanish explorer: "The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ingersoll uses this quote to make a point: "The trouble with most people is, they bow to what is called authority." Ingersoll's thrust in this article is that "It is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality" and "There can be nothing more utterly subversive of all that is really valuable than the suppression of honest thought--No man, worthy of the form he bears, will at the command of church or state solemnly repeat a creed his reason scorns." I agree with Ingersoll. If you do not, that is certainly your privilege.

-DM-

[gaijin]

It allegedly has a foundation: Job 38.4, Psalms 104.5

I think you'll find that Job 38:4 is in amongst a whole range of poetic symbolic language. Job 38:7, for instance, has the stars singing for joy and other areas talk about the earth having marked off dimensions and a cornerstone. It is talking about the earth in terms of the construction of a house. It's a metaphor.

Psalms 104:5 is the same kind of thing - it's a poem with a whole lot of symbolic language. 104:5-9 are talking about the realm of the earth being made secure. Again, it is metaphorical.

It allegedly has supporting pillars: 1 Sam 2.8

That is incorrect I'm afraid. 1 Sam 2:8 is again talking about foundations, not pillars. Earth here does not mean the planet either, it is translated from a word that means the dry land upon which man lives. Foundations, in this case (if you want to take it literally) means the layer of the world upon which the dirt sits. Anyway, it is not talking about a theory of the structure of the universe, it is talking about the world belonging to God.

It allegedly has four corners: Isa 11.12, Rev 7.1

Isa 11:12 is literally "four wings", and is a figure of speech meaning the far reaches of the world.

If you are fairly well versed in scripture then you will know that a great deal of Revelations is symbolic. Rev 7:1 is again talking about the four angels holding back the destructive agents of God, mentioned here as "winds". The four corners, likewise, are not actually literal corners.

It can allegedly be turned upside down: Isa 24.1

Another translation of Isa 42:1 reads, "See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants-". In other words, it is talking about the destruction of the earth, not actually flipping it upside down.

It is apparently flat enough that a tall tree can be seen everywhere: Dan 4.11

Dan 4:11 is talking about King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. It is a dream, not a literal description of the world. The tree you refer to here represents the King, and it's size represents his dominion extending to distant parts of the earth.

It is apparently flat enough that all its kingdoms can be seen from a very tall mountain: Mt 4.8

That refers to a section where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a very tall mountain to show him the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. Of course, the kingdoms of the world would not all be visible from the top of a mountain even if the world was flat. Satan here just points them out to Jesus, if it is literal, then it would probably be through visions of some sort, not by saying, "see, that speck over there is New Zealand, see?".

It is allegedly a circle Isa 40.22 [in reality, it is a sphere]

The "circle" in Isa 40:22 can also be translated as "horizon". Again, that whole chapter is talking in metaphors; it talks about people being planted and sown in Isa 40:24 for instance. The verse you refer to demonstrates that the Lord is the ruler of the earth, not literally sitting above it in space, and it is not saying that the earth is a circle.

Lastly, I would agree with you that you should not repeat a creed that your reason scorns. To pretend to believe something that you don't would be deceitful, a sin. I'm sure that Christ would agree with that.

[-DM-]

One of the most interesting facets of biblical interpretation has to do with what is to be taken literally vs. metaphorically. On this, Christians themselves cannot agree. We have fundamentalists, who tend to take things very literally, and we have liberal Christians who tend to say that almost anything that doesn't fit with observed reality is to be taken metaphorically. Thus, while I agree with you that some of these verses are likely meant to be taken metaphorically, I also believe that a perfect and omnipotent "God" and his so-called "Holy Spirit" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it, so that it would be unequivocally clear what was intended, were "God" to have had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.

That is incorrect I'm afraid. 1 Sam 2:8 is again talking about foundations, not pillars.It always amuses me when apologists believe that they have a better translation than do the experts in the Hebrew and Greek languages who are responsible for our Bible translations.

1SA 2.8:

KJV: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

ASV: For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, And he hath set the world upon them.

NASB: For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, And He set the world on them.

RSV: For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and on them he has set the world.

DNT: For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, and he hath set the world upon them.

GWT: The pillars of the earth are the LORD's. He has set the world on them.

The word here translated "pillars" is Strong's H4690, which means:
something narrow, that is, a column or hill top: pillar, situate.

Earth here does not mean the planet either, it is translated from a word that means the dry land upon which man lives.The word here translated variously as "earth" and "world" is Strong's H776, which means: to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Foundations, in this case (if you want to take it literally) means the layer of the world upon which the dirt sits.I'll go with the translation of these experts in their field rather than with yours.

Anyway, it is not talking about a theory of the structure of the universe, it is talking about the world belonging to God.Regardless, it is nevertheless talking about the earth, the world, resting on pillars.

Isa 11:12 is literally "four wings", and is a figure of speech meaning the far reaches of the world.You seem to be somewhat selective, here, given that the word in question, H3671, means: an edge or extremity; specifically (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of a building) a pinnacle: + bird, border, corner, end, feather [-ed], X flying, + (one an-) other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing ([-ed]).

If you are fairly well versed in scripture then you will know that a great deal of Revelations is symbolic.Extremely symbolic.

Another translation of Isa 42:1 reads, "See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants-". In other words, it is talking about the destruction of the earth, not actually flipping it upside down.The verse in question was IS 24.1 (vice 42.1), which reads:

KJV: Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

ASV: Behold, Jehovah maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

NASB: Behold, the LORD lays the earth waste, devastates it, distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants.

RSV: Behold, the LORD will lay waste the earth and make it desolate, and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants.

DNT: Behold, Jehovah maketh the land empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad its inhabitants.

GWT: The LORD is going to turn the earth into a desolate wasteland. He will mar the face of the earth and scatter the people living on it.

YLT: Lo, Jehovah is emptying the land,
And is making it waste,
And hath overturned it on its face,
And hath scattered its inhabitants.

Interestingly, the most literal translations of the Hebrew, KJV and YLT, talk about turning the earth upside down, or overturning the earth on its face. The other translations are much less literal.

Dan 4:11 is talking about King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. It is a dream, not a literal description of the world. The tree you refer to here represents the King, and it's size represents his dominion extending to distant parts of the earth.Very likely.

That refers to a section where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a very tall mountain to show him the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. Of course, the kingdoms of the world would not all be visible from the top of a mountain even if the world was flat. Satan here just points them out to Jesus, if it is literal, then it would probably be through visions of some sort, not by saying, "see, that speck over there is New Zealand, see?".Sorry, but I do not accept what is "probably." To do so would be to accept an ad hoc explanation based on your guesswork.

MT 4.8 says:

KJV: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

ASV: Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

NCV: Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor.

NASB: Again, the devil took* Him to a very high mountain and showed* Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;

RSV: Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

DNT: Again the devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shews him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory,

GWT: Once more the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms in the world and their glory.

YLT: Again doth the Devil take him to a very high mount, and doth shew to him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,

Could all the kingdoms of the world be seen from a very tall mountain if the earth were flat? The answer is "yes," if there were few kingdoms and/or the earth were small enough. But in any case, again, a perfect and omnipotent "God" and his so-called "Holy Spirit" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were "God" to have had anything to do with the writing of the Bible so that it would be unequivocally clear what was intended.

The "circle" in Isa 40:22 can also be translated as "horizon".It is translated "circle" in NCV, YLT, DNT, RSV, NAB, ASV, KJV. If you translate it "horizon," then you do away with the use of this verse by Christian apologists as a proof text that the Bible correctly states that the earth is round.

Again, that whole chapter is talking in metaphors; it talks about people being planted and sown in Isa 40:24 for instance. The verse you refer to demonstrates that the Lord is the ruler of the earth, not literally sitting above it in space, and it is not saying that the earth is a circle.I agree that the whole chapter is talking in metaphors (like much of the Bible, including many portions which Christians tend to take literally), but the verse says that "God" is sitting on the "circle of the earth." The word "circle" is Strong's H2328: a circle: circle, circuit, compassive.

If this verse is not meant to imply that the earth is a circle, "God" could have (and should have) "inspired" the author to write simply: "It is he that sitteth upon the earth...."

Lastly, I would agree with you that you should not repeat a creed that your reason scorns. To pretend to believe something that you don't would be deceitful, a sin.Hmmnn. Do you believe, then, what the Bible says in MK 16.18? Or is this something else which you believe is to be taken metaphorically. (But don't bother to explain to me how these "gifts" were allegedly done away with. Just tell me, please, whether you believe this verse.)

I'm sure that Christ would agree with that."Christ" is a title, not a name. Of course I know that you mean Jesus. I disagree, however, that he would necessarily agree with that given that he was sometimes somewhat deceitful himself. But that is another subject which I don't wish to pursue at this time.

-Don-

P.S. Regarding metaphor, I tend to agree with you regarding most of these verses. I go a bit further, however. I say that even the alleged temptation of Jesus by Satan (involving the very tall mountain) is metaphorical, or more correctly, mythological. Ditto with the Creation and the Fall. But again, these are different subjects and I don't want to pursue them at this time. Still, the fact is that some Christian apologists like to use the "circle" in Isaiah in a literal sense as a proof text to support that the Bible paints a picture of a round earth, yet they would dismiss the other verses as metaphorical. I dismiss much more as metaphorical (or mythological).

[gaijin]

My girlfriend is helping me with this one, haha. I love her though so it's all good :)

Okay, I concede that 1 Sam 2:8 is talking about pillars, that's my lack of research showing I guess. Even though, I still think it's in the midst of a long prayer about how the earth is Gods. If the "pillars" part was literal then it wouldn't make any sense at all because it says: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, [and] lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set [them] among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth [are] the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them."

"Pillars" here is a reference to the earth belongs to God and that God is in control. It doesn't mean that there are these 4 concrete pylons that he is registered as owning.

The context has nothing to do with the scientific makeup of the earth.

You seem to be somewhat selective, here, given that the word in question, H3671, means: an edge or extremity

The quote says, "gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth". If you want to say that it is talking about literal corners then you are saying that the dispersed of Judah ran off to the very edges of the world and were then sitting in large uncomfortable groups on the pointy bits. That wouldn't make much sense would it? It's fairly apparent that it is talking about the far reaches, not actual corners.

Interestingly, the most literal translations of the Hebrew, KJV and YLT, talk about turning the earth upside down, or overturning the earth on its face. The other translations are much less literal.

The literal translation of the Hebrew in that section, according to Strong's Concordance, of Isa 24:1 is to bend, twist or distort the face of the earth. Besides, a couple of verses later it talks about people getting burned and people crying in the streets, and if the earth had actually been flipped upside down then there wouldn't be people still there to get burned or to run around in streets instead of going to work like good responsible citizens.

Could all the kingdoms of the world be seen from a very tall mountain if the earth were flat? The answer is "yes," if there were few kingdoms and/or the earth were small enough.

No it's not, you can't see anything in any kind of detail from the top of a mountain. Certainly not the "glory" in a city, even if it were at the very foot of the mountain. It wouldn't make sense to look at this verse in a literal sense like that.

But in any case, again, a perfect and omnipotent "God" and his so-called "Holy Spirit" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it were "God" to have had anything to do with the writing of the Bible so that it would be unequivocally clear what was intended.

What was intended here was to show that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the cities, the verse isn't intended to give people a geography lesson and people reading geography into it are missing the point.

If this verse is not meant to imply that the earth is a circle, "God" could have (and should have) "inspired" the author to write simply: "It is he that sitteth upon the earth...."

So the Bible can't use metaphors? Besides, from space it does look like a circle. You could still describe it as circular from a perspective view without being incorrect. Besides, in the same verse it talks about God stretching out the heavens. You can't deny that Isaiah is just loaded with figurative language here.

Do you believe, then, what the Bible says in MK 16.18?

Sure, but it is only talking about the apostles that Christ was sending out at the time, not all believers for ever and ever. That would be silly.

"Christ" is a title, not a name. Of course I know that you mean Jesus.

Good, I'm glad you didn't mistake Jesus for my girlfriend. Her name is Kristy, but the gas bill people here (in Japan) didn't get the spelling of her name right and the gas bill to her house is consequently always addressed to "Christ". ;)

he was sometimes somewhat deceitful himself. But that is another subject which I don't wish to pursue at this time.

Okay, let's spar at a latter date then. Bike racks. After school.

I say that even the alleged temptation of Jesus by Satan (involving the very tall mountain) is metaphorical, or more correctly, mythological.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I am enjoying this discussion, learning lots about areas I didn't know much about previously, so I owe you a debt of gratitude for that. Thank you :)

Hope you are having a nice weekend! Looking forward to more witty debate!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :)

[-DM-]

"Pillars" here is a reference to the earth belongs to God and that God is in control. It doesn't mean that there are these 4 concrete pylons that he is registered as owning.Your revised interpretation is more tenable than your first insistence: "That is incorrect I'm afraid. 1 Sam 2:8 is again talking about foundations, not pillars." There is still a problem, however. "God" in his alleged omniscience would have known that this verse could and would be "misconstrued" by some. Were "He" perfect, and were "He" involved in the inspiration of the Bible, he could have, should have, and would have done a much better job of wording. And finally, the idea of the earth resting on a foundation and/or pillars might likely have been in line with the cosmology of the times during which this verse was written.

The quote says, "gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth". If you want to say that it is talking about literal corners then you are saying that the dispersed of Judah ran off to the very edges of the world and were then sitting in large uncomfortable groups on the pointy bits. That wouldn't make much sense would it? It's fairly apparent that it is talking about the far reaches, not actual corners.Three things to keep in mind: 1) Your insistence that the words in question literally meant "four wings" was quite selective. That was one point I was making. 2) It wouldn't make much sense in English to say "gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four wings of the earth." We do, of course, use "the four corners of the earth" figuratively. 3) I have already said that many of these verses are meant to be taken metaphorically (and by that I mean "figuratively," in case there is any doubt).

The literal translation of the Hebrew in that section, according to Strong's Concordance, of Isa 24:1 is to bend, twist or distort the face of the earth.Again, you are being quite selective in your choice of definitions. There are at least two words involved here, H5921-H6440, and the definitions are numerous and vague.

. . . and if the earth had actually been flipped upside down then there wouldn't be people still there to get burned or to run around in streets instead of going to work like good responsible citizens.You don't mean to imply, I hope, that they would have fallen off the bottom of the earth.

No it's not, you can't see anything in any kind of detail from the top of a mountain. Certainly not the "glory" in a city, even if it were at the very foot of the mountain. It wouldn't make sense to look at this verse in a literal sense like that.It is an indisputable fact that "all the kingdoms of the world" could be seen from a very tall mountain if the earth were flat and sufficiently small, and if there were sufficiently few kingdoms.

Could the "glory" of those kingdoms be seen from such a mountain? That would depend on what is meant by "glory." The word in use here is Strong's G1391:

Thayer Definition: 1) opinion, judgment, view 2) opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone 2a) in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory 3) splendour, brightness 3a) of the moon, sun, stars 3b) magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace 3c) majesty 3c1) a thing belonging to God 3c1) the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity 3c2) a thing belonging to Christ 3c2a) the kingly majesty of the Messiah 3c2b) the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty 3c3) of the angels 3c3a) as apparent in their exterior brightness 4) a most glorious condition, most exalted state 4a) of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth 4b) the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour’s return from heaven

Note that it can mean simply "view."

What was intended here was to show that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the cities, the verse isn't intended to give people a geography lesson and people reading geography into it are missing the point.I tend to agree, athrough not with nearly the certitude that you seem to display, yet it is always interesting to me that believers can be so certain about what their god allegedly intends. Even so, we nevertheless have 20,000+ different Christian denominations, some with major doctrinal differences and most with minor doctrinal differences, all allegedly based on biblical interpretation with regard to what "God" intended.

In any case, my take on this story is that it is entirely mythical, that it is intended to make a point about resisting temptation but not to be taken as historical.

So the Bible can't use metaphors?Certainly the Bible can and does use metaphors. But a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" who cared at all about correct interpretation of a book that "He" had inspired could, should, and would see to it that "his" inspiration of the wording made it so that it could not be so easily misconstrued. In addition, his "Holy Spirit" could make sure, at the very least, that believers came to the same interpretations throughout the Bible, especially in instances where interpretation is crucial [pardon the pun].

Besides, from space it does look like a circle. You could still describe it as circular from a perspective view without being incorrect. Besides, in the same verse it talks about God stretching out the heavens. You can't deny that Isaiah is just loaded with figurative language here.Yes, Isaiah is loaded with figurative language here--and elsewhere. As I have said, I believe that much of the Bible--including many parts which you likely take as factual if not literal--should be taken figuratively.

[Regarding belief in MK 16.18] Sure, but it is only talking about the apostles that Christ was sending out at the time, not all believers for ever and ever. That would be silly.As the "Church Lady" would say, "how conveeenient."

The verse says nothing whatsoever about being limited to the Apostles which Jesus (who was not the Christ so far as I am concerned) was allegedly sending out at the time.

Here it is in context:

--

MK 16.16-18 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

--

If you are going to argue that this only applies to the then Apostles, that would leave out Paul and all those since the original bunch. It also brings into question the propriety of the so-called Great Commission--and many of the other actions of Christians, evangelists, missionaries, etc. in the present.

There would be an easier way out of it, however, had you not already said that you believed it: these final verses in Mark are said by a great many biblical scholars to be a relatively late emendation to the original text. There are sufficient textual and stylistic differences between the rest of Mark that The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes that verses 16.9-20 "cannot possibly have been part of the original text of Mark"--which fact, along with other such emendations elsewhere in the Bible, calls into question the logic of taking the Bible as a whole as the "word of God."

Good, I'm glad you didn't mistake Jesus for my girlfriend. Her name is Kristy, but the gas bill people here (in Japan) didn't get the spelling of her name right and the gas bill to her house is consequently always addressed to "Christ". ;)How amusing (really).

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.. . . and you to yours, of course.

I am enjoying this discussion, learning lots about areas I didn't know much about previously, so I owe you a debt of gratitude for that. Thank you :)I have enjoyed the discussion as well. You might be interested to know that, as a result of our discussion, I have revised my Bible material to remove some of the references which I had originally included to allegedly indicate that the Bible portrayed the earth as flat. Unfortunately (for me) that is one of the problems with relying on secondary sources; obviously, some turned out to be untrustworthy. Of course there is little choice in this day and age given that we cannot always even find primary sources even if we wanted to do so.

In any case, getting back to the original point of the original feedback, and summarizing the main point that should be made about that feedback and our discussion since: Ingersoll (who died more than 100 years ago and wrote this article 130 years ago) would not have had the benefit of the bountiful biblical research which has been done in the past 100 years or so. He quoted what was allegedly attributed to the explorer, Magellan; Ingersoll, himself, did not (so far as I know) in his article "Individuality" say that the Bible says that the earth is flat. There are, however, a number of Bible critics who use the verses I originally mentioned as proof texts that the Bible does portrays a flat earth. I agree, however, that they may well be mistaken based on the judgement that the verses in question are not to be taken literally.

Hope you are having a nice weekend! Looking forward to more witty debate!Inasmuch as you are a registered user, you should take part in the debates in the open discussion forums (e.g., Biblical Criticism & History, Existence of Gods, etc.) inasmuch as the Feedback forum has only to do with feedback to material published on the Secular Web.

Regards,
-Don-

[gaijin]

Thanks for the discussion Don!

It seems that there are still a few points that we differ on, but it feels like we have wound the important stuff up, so I'm heading off to other forums to make a nusance of myself there.

Would be interested to engage in more debate at a later time, perhaps on whether or not it would be possible to create a text that could not be misinterpreted, or on the context of Mark 16:18.

Until then!

[ginesdemafra]

"The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church."

DM correctly cites Robert Green Ingersoll as the person who attributed the above quote as coming from Magellan. Nowhere does Ingersoll cite his source. I have read all the primary sources of Magellana--eyewitness accounts by Antonio Pigafetta, Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, The Genoese Pilot, Martinho de Aiamonte, Sebastian Elcano, even secondhand accounts by Joao de Barros, Bishop Bartolome de las Casas, etc.--nowhere can you find any shadow of those words.

The best way to classify the quote is to say "Suspect quote attributed by Robert Green Ingersoll to Ferdinand Magellan without citing any source."

The the most truthful way to classify it is to state squarely that it is a fabrication of Ingersoll. Of course it is only natural to be so enamored by the idea it really came from the Portuguese navigator and so assume Ingersoll--against the need for authentication--had a genuine source.

The improbability Magellan said the quote may be deduced from the fact the Catholic Church had not insisted the Earth was flat. The Church pronounced as dogma the notion--that no one holds anymore--the Earth was the center of the Universe.

[-DM-]

The best way to classify the quote is to say "Suspect quote attributed by Robert Green Ingersoll to Ferdinand Magellan without citing any source."That would probably be the best way, and it would be an honest way.

The the most truthful way to classify it is to state squarely that it is a fabrication of Ingersoll.Unless one were omniscient and therefore knew with certainty that this was true, one could certainly not truthfully say that Ingersoll fabricated the quote. It is possible, for example, that Ingersoll used a secondary source of some sort. So the best that we can say is that this isn't likely to be a genuine Magellan quote.

Note: Ingersoll doesn't site his sources in any of the many of his articles (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/) in the Historical Library (http://http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/) that I checked just now.

-DM-

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The resort of allegory is all very fine for many parts of the Bible but not for it all. Good luck defending 1 Chronicles 16:30 ("Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved")!

E pur si muove!