[Stealth]

Originally posted by StratComm


No, it didn't.  There's no point where the Bible is anything more than ambiguous on the whole matter.  You've interpreted it, in a modern context, to not outright conflict with scientific common knowledge.  That interpretation is not equivalent to unambiguous knowledge about our world, period.

how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?

You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore.  Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Stealth

The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space.  it was flat.  it rested on elephants.  end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......

...

The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time.  so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.  

actualy as has been mentioned about a dozen times now, many people of that time DID beleive the earth was round and part of a celestial system.

but more importantly the Bible DOESN'T say this, it is only YOUR INTERPETATION of it, comeing at it ASSUMEING IT CANNOT BE WRONG, and knowing that the earth is in fact a sphere, contorting the words of the Bible and reality untill you can find some obsure way of connecting the two, and then claiming that the bible stated something it did not, I could probly find ways of interpeting the Bible that says up is down, light is dark and green is in fact orenge but it wouldn't make any of these things true just because I could pick random bits of  fact take them out of context reinterpet them a dozen times change the meaning of words from and stich them together with duct tape.

now pay atention here, this is the important part

you can make the Bible mean just about anything you want so useing it as the basis of finding scientific details/theory is absurd. even assumeing it is devinely inspired and that it does indeed contain the truth, you probly don't fully understand it and especaly when it comes to finding the rules that define how the mortal plane work, it seems as if these truths, if they exsist, can only be found after the fact, after we find them on our own (ie via science). so you CANNOT use Biblical evedence in science because Biblical evedence, if it is accurate, can only be found after a vast amount of interpetation.

now can we get back to werever we were when you claimed that Biblical evedence could be used in science.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?

You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore.  Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?

Entirely possible. Especially in the case of, for example, Hebrew to Latin to Olde English to modern English.  For example, the King James translation apparently has some bias in it which based around the Protestant concept of faith only.  There has certainly been changes; for example in KJ the (para)phrase 'stretched the north over the empty place', in newer translations it becomes the north skies.

For example - your example -  the word (hhug) used in the bible which you take to mean sphere, has the dual meaning 'circle' and 'sphere'.  From the perspective of someone trying to prove the bible 'right', sphere would be the assumption.  From the perspective of anthropology (AFAIK the majority of cultures believed in a flat earth theory, up to and well after its writing), 'circle' would seem more plausible (and indeed was the preferred translation until it was unequivocally proven the earth was spherical).

The bible does not (correctly) say the earth hangs upon space, either, because of contradictions on what the word 'earth' even means; in another passage it is described as immobile, in another it is described as having foundations.  You can only reconcile this with modern knowledge by giving that 'earth' different meanings in those 3 (for example) passages.

(also, the concept of space as we know is not necessarily the meaning of space - or rather 'nothing' as described in the bible.  AFAIK there's no explicit explanation of the sun, other planets, stars etc in an accurate astronomical sense, although I've not checked fully.  certainly the description of God stopping the sun for a battle doesn't chime with reality)

Furthermore, when you ascribe correctness on the basis of divine inspiration, you are really assuming correctness via your own foreknowledge.  What the bible does get right, is not necessarily attributable to Gods' divine guidance (for lack of a better term).  The value of pi (whilst semi-close, is still wrong) was already known to a far greater accuracy by older cultures, and the concept of a spherical earth was known to the ancient Greeks.  Another example being the concept of 'the circuit of the winds'; I would sincerely doubt it requires divine knowledge to notice which way the wind is blowing, particularly in an era when sailboats were used (for example).

As we cannot prove divine inspiration (neither in terms of accuracy of what was written, nor a divine mechanism, i.e. the existence of God), how can we possibly prove the correctness of some or all of the bible itself?  As part of the principles of science is a reliance on empirical fact, the bible simply does not qualify for consideration, any more than,  (for example) Beowulf can be considered a literal historical document.

[Bobboau]

or penny archade as a documentation of the laws of physics.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Stealth


how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?

It is by the fact that the passages you posted make no explicit reference to either a sphere or space.  It can be forced to fit with other knowledge, but it is not explicitly stated.  Most places actually infer the opposite of a spherical earth.

Originally posted by Stealth
You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore.  Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?

And haven't we been making this case since Biblical evidence was first brought into this debate?  I know of no one that calls the King James version 100% accurate to the original texts, and that's assuming that what we have as "original texts" are even unmodified from their original (now lost) form.  You're taking a stance that even literalist Biblical scholars won't touch with a 10-foot pole, because a simple comparison between two translations of the same book are in fact very different.

[Stealth]

Bob:  Check your spelling in that post, it's atrocious.

Anyway.  Point is, however you choose to interpret it:  if a scripture talks about the Earth hanging in space, not suspended by anything, when at the time beliefs were completely opposite, then JUST PERHAPS it was right.

just perhaps.

Translations do change words, and wording, as to be expected.  but they don't change from, for example: "Earth on elephants" to "Earth suspended in space"... they may change 'space' to 'nothing', and such, but c'mon.  stop pulling the blinds down in front of your eyes intentionally.  

actualy as has been mentioned about a dozen times now, many people of that time DID beleive the earth was round and part of a celestial system.

no they didn't.

maybe a handful, and they were laughed at for their beliefs.

[aldo_14]

IF that is what it talks about, which is itself a matter of intepretation and furthermore not something (i.e. the correct supposition of the planet Earth being within the vacuum of space) that could be placed down to divine insight due to it being an existing theory.  

I'd point out the concept of a spherical, 'hanging' earth is scarcely the opposite of the rest of the worlds' beliefs.  In the 1st century, Pliny the Elder (23-79) declared the world was agreed that Earth was spherical (in his 'Natural history'); this, I would wager, too early to be down to biblical influence. (I'm ignoring the 'rest' of the world, i.e. those continents outside western europe and the middle-east/north africa; I know the Greeks believed in a spherical, earth in space, and the Indians, and apparently the Chinese had a similar BC-era opinion, although I've read varying descriptions of whether it was a sphere or hemisphere they regarded the earth as)

EDIT; specifically, all educated Greeks and Romans accepted the spherical earth theory by about the 3rd century CE.

edit2;  I've been trying to check exactly how entrenched - if atall - the flat earth theory was in the church during medieval times.  From what I can tell, they stuck pretty much to the Greek (spherical) model, although they objected to the non-geocentric view of the universe from Copernicus and Galileo, etc.  So if I said the medieval (etc) church was flat-earthist, I was almost certainly wrong about that.

Evidence of other middle eastern mythology (which would have inspired the OT writers) would seem to make a flat earth description more likely (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm).  As the spherical earth theory would be more accepted by the time of the NTs' writing, it would be more likely to be found in those books.

However, 'just perhaps' is not good enough.  'Just perhaps' is not a solild or suitable factual basis for forming an... idea that is to be taught as scientific theory.  If[/i] evolutionary theory was a guess without evidence (that might 'perhaps' be right), then ID (nee creationism, and specifically biblican creationism due to it's main proponents) could be considered a valid alternative.

 But evolutionary theory is not just a guess, as it is derived from, and tested against, empirical facts and evidence.  It is, the most plausible, most empirically supported theory and the only one (vis-a-vis creationism) that has the criteria of a scientific theory.

[Stealth]

I'd point out the concept of a spherical, 'hanging' earth is scarcely the opposite of the rest of the worlds' beliefs. In the 1st century, Pliny the Elder (23-79) declared the world was agreed that Earth was spherical (in his 'Natural history'); this, I would wager, too early to be down to biblical influence. (I'm ignoring the 'rest' of the world, i.e. those continents outside western europe and the middle-east/north africa; I know the Greeks believed in a spherical, earth in space, and the Indians, and apparently the Chinese had a similar BC-era opinion, although I've read varying descriptions of whether it was a sphere or hemisphere they regarded the earth as)

First let me ask you if you're familiar with the dates some of the Biblical books were written...  you talk about so-and-so in first century CE, and then the greeks, etc.  and that's somewhat impressive

......... until you realize that the writing of Job was completed in 1473 BCE (<-- Keyword.  QUITE a few years before the cultures/people you mentioned).

And thus i rest my case.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
WeatherOp: I'm still waiting for you to rebuke my Biblical argument that says you are blaspheming by claiming you know God's will. Or do you lack the ability to?

   

:Matthew 5:5
    Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

meek

adj 1: humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness; "meek and self-effacing" [syn: mild, modest] 2: very docile; "tame obedience"; "meek as a mouse"- Langston Hughes [syn: tame] 3: evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"; "a fine fiery blast against meek conformity"- Orville Prescott; "she looked meek but had the heart of a lion"; "was submissive and subservient" [syn: compliant, spiritless]

out of the dictionary, not blaspheming

   

:Mark 7:20-23
    And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Yep, but once again when you become born again, and with God living inside you cannot be wicked, while you may still do things against God, due to man's sinful nature.

Not blaspheming

   

:John 8:7
    So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Yep, do I have the right to kill you because your sinful, no, cause I'm still human too, I'm still sinful. Even tho God lives inside me, I'm still human I'm still gonna fall.

Now tell me how I'm blaspheming. Do I know God's will, yes it's all in the Bible, and then God tells me personally if what I do is right or wrong and then the Bible is there to back it up, and then he tells me His perfect will for my life. However I cannot tell you to be a preacher, missionary or something else cause I do not know God's will for your life.

But, Bible tells me to preach.

2 Timothy 4:2

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine

And then Jesus tells me to

Matthew 28

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

   20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So, I cannot tell you God's will for your life, but I can preach unto you "Ye must be born again".

[StratComm]

What case?  You still haven't even remotely shown that the Bible is specific on a round-earth theory.  You've shown that you can INTERPRET it that way, not that it say such a thing.  Pretty f***ing huge distinction.  We're WAY off on a tangent here, but there has been nothing show anything more specific than that the Bible is a horrible source for "factual" information, simply because you can't get anything close to full agreement on what it says, much less what it means.

EDIT: WeatherOp, the difference is that while preaching is a mandate from Christ, proporting to know the explicit will of God (in your case, by saying with certainty who has and has not found him) is blasphemy.  No mortal can possibly know that sort of thing.  Quote Biblical references to preaching all you want, it won't change that fact.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


First let me ask you if you're familiar with the dates some of the Biblical books were written...  you talk about so-and-so in first century CE, and then the greeks, etc.  and that's somewhat impressive

......... until you realize that the writing of Job was completed in 1473 BCE (<-- Keyword.  QUITE a few years before the cultures/people you mentioned).

And thus i rest my case.

See my edited in reference to middle eastern mythology and the literal interpretation of the OT (particularly the 'firmament').  I don't believe Job explicitly states a spherical earth, anyways.

Also, the date of the book of Job is in dispute; 700 BC, 550 BC, or 400-300 BC (source; http://www.cresourcei.org/books/job.html).   Only the first date would bring it before Pythagoras' theory.  And none of this would make such a statement - if that is what it is - divinely inspired.  The Indians observation of not only a spherical earth, but one orbiting the sun, predates even your date of Job.

I know that Job is regarded as being a man who lived to a whopping 140 years old in the 1st or 2nd millenium BC, but that isn't really relevant as there's no guarantee he existed, or that the tale was not modified through centuries of verbal folklore.

I am, of course, assuming there was no retrospective editing to the OT.

[Sesquipedalian]

Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators.  Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14


See my edited in reference to middle eastern mythology and the literal interpretation of the OT (particularly the 'firmament').  I don't believe Job explicitly states a spherical earth, anyways.

Also, the date of the book of Job is in dispute; 700 BC, 550 BC, or 400-300 BC (source; http://www.cresourcei.org/books/job.html).   Only the first date would bring it before Pythagoras' theory.  And none of this would make such a statement - if that is what it is - divinely inspired.  The Indians observation of not only a spherical earth, but one orbiting the sun, predates even your date of Job.

I know that Job is regarded as being a man who lived to a whopping 140 years old in the 1st or 2nd millenium BC, but that isn't really relevant as there's no guarantee he existed, or that the tale was not modified through centuries of verbal folklore.

I am, of course, assuming there was no retrospective editing to the OT.

suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it.  you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.

also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by WeatherOp

But, Bible tells me to preach.

not wanting to take all the glory from whoever's involved in this debate, but just wanted to throw something in:

You acknowledge that the bible tells Christians to preach, yet how many "Christian" religions actually preach, like Jesus did?  Think about it.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Stealth


suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it.  you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.

also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.

I honestly have absolutely no idea how to even begin to respond to that.  Maybe that the person out of ideas isn't aldo, since there's no content there whatsoever, but that's about it.

[Stealth]

?

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Stealth


maybe it's because we don't speak the same language, therefore you're having trouble understanding this:

The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space.  it was flat.  it rested on elephants.  end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......

THEREFORE the people who wrote the book did NOT take the "knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and write them onto the Bible"... because they all believed the opposite of what's written in the Bible.  you understand!?

If you don't read anything else, do your best to understand this sentence:

The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time.  so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.  

see where i'm coming from here?

Although I'm not a native english user, I think I wrote clearly when I exposed that the idea that the earth was round was proved by many MANY ancient greek philosophers!!! Explain how the pythagoreans had that knowledge 500 years BC! It was NOT unheard of, no matter how much you shout about, it was not unique it had been discussed and proven before. As for the earth hanging in space, no scientific theory EVER considered that the earth was hang by turtles or whatever. Those were beliefs and beliefs are not science. Spheres inside spheres was a theory that tried to explain the form of the universe and still as the spheres didn't exactly touch each other they... would be hanging by nothing. So as you can see, the bible didn't exactly told anything new, just gathered information from sources and put it there.

Concluding, shout as much as you want, I understand you perfectly clear. Just because my mastery of this language isn't as good as the majority of this forum doesn't mean you can dismiss my arguments with a simple "english n00b!".

Next time someone tells me the bible was written by divine inspiration, I'll tell them I solved my science tests by "divine inspiration"!

[Ace]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so now do you all see why Biblical evedence cannot be used in science (other than perhapse anthopology)?

*Smacks Bobboau*

Stop giving us a bad name

No *real* archaeologist wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm going to find the lost city of Atlantis, then Troy, and finally the lost tribe of Apsu-Hek!"

Generally what happens is you find a site, then when correlating it with historical and material evidence you wind up finding out it was this city mentioned in myth. (also mentioned in real historic documents, but until then assumed to be allegory)

All of the "biblical" cities found are also mentioned in contemporary historic documents. (Greek, Sumerian, Phoenician, etc.) There are plenty of cities though in that book that appear to be purely mythical in nature as nothing in real life resembles their descriptions/events.

So no self-respecting archaeologist uses the bible as a primary source, it needs other evidence as well. (generally the truth of the events is between what the Hebrews and Phoenicians wrote...)

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Stealth


not wanting to take all the glory from whoever's involved in this debate, but just wanted to throw something in:

You acknowledge that the bible tells Christians to preach, yet how many "Christian" religions actually preach, like Jesus did?  Think about it.

Sorry, I didn't really get that, can you please help me out.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian


Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators.  Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.

how true..

What' the hell is keeping this thread going? the discussion is pointless anyway...