|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
The people who kill in God's name are not living according to the teachings of Christ. He never advocated violence as a means of spreading the Gospel.
So what you describe is not God's plan.
What about the Israelities? Or David? Or any of the Christians leaders who went to war? Are you saying that none of the were following God's plans?
Quote:
Tom:
Dave, let me read Isaiah 45:7. “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Well, does the person have a point here?
Quote:
Sola scriptura, sola fidei, solo gratis, Scripture only, faith only, Grace only.
If its scripture only then the scripture says God created evil. Only being interpreting and making assumptions can you make it say anything else. What about Leviticus? Leviticus 19:19 ("Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.") or Leviticus 19:27 ('Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.") even though Leviticus 19:37 clearly states, "'Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD." Do you do everything in Leviticus as commanded?
That's my problem with Religion and the Bible in general. You keep the parts you like, forget about the bad parts (Leviticus, Crusades, Inquisitions, Dark Ages...etc)., and you interpret whatever you can to make it say what you want.
I can't tell the difference between a pastor and used car salesman, both are selling something with a shady past.
Those are very good questions.
1. I meant Jesus never advocated violence to coerce people to believe the Gospel. As far as Old Testament examples, war was necessary in order for the nation of Israel to survive. The wars that Israel fought were to preserve their existence as a nation and also their spiritual heritage. There is a difference between war to protect a nation, and killing people for not believing in God. Christianity is not opposed to war,( though some Christians are), only violence to promote its cause.
2. The article explained what the phrase God created evil meant. By the way, I agree with most of what the article says, except for the premise that evil in that passage refers to moral evil. I do not think the passage is speaking of moral evil, the Hebrew word is ra, which means something that is painful, unpleasant, and causing distress. Unpleasant things are not always morally evil. For example, if I discipline my child, it may be unpleasant, but it is not evil if done correctly and in love. In fact, it is necessary and beneficial. God creates evil, ( distress, calamnity) to get our attention.
3. You don't understand the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament was preparatory, preparing us for Christ. The minutia of the Old Testament were symbols representing Spiritual things. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under such laws as not mixing fabrics, or how to cut our hair. ( Read the Books of Galatians and Romans). Of course, the Moral commands, ( Do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery) are still in effect because they are repeated in the New Testament. The laws of the Old Testament fell into several categories.
Moral Laws
Political Laws
Ceremonial Laws
Etc.
Christ fullfilled the Old Testament law. Read the book of Galatians.
The inquisitions and other wrongs were carried out by men that wrongly assumed that the Kingdom of God was of this age, not realizing that Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." As I said, you cant lump all Christians in this category any more than you can say all atheists are communists, ( which was an atheistic system that accounted for at least 100 million deaths) I know not all atheists are like that, just like you should know not all Christians are bloodthirsty fanatics.
Just because some people pervert Christianity, doesnt make its teachings invalid
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,552
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,552 |
Who woulda thought that a guy named for the Norse god of mischief and evil would be so against religion ........ lol
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
why can't religion be like most things in life, something that adapts and continues to evolve over time?
I'm not saying it shouldn't. Religions should evolve and change. Would you read a history or science book that was made 2000 years ago and consider it fact?But the truth is most religions simply don't change. Only interpretations and excuses change.
Let me know when Bible 2.0 comes out...I'll hold my breath.
Do you know what else does not change? For one mathematics don't change. The fact that man needs food and water does not change. The fact that apple trees produce apples, and orange trees produce oranges doesnt change. The fact that mothers generally love their children doesnt change. The fact that murder is wrong doesnt change. The fact that man, is born, lives, and dies does not change. There are many realities that don't change.
I believe that true religion is based on reality, not man's opinions. The reality that true religion would teach of course would primarily involve spiritual things. Spiritual realities cannot be observed by human senses other than through Divine revelation. That's why Christianity does not change. Science changes because we make new discoveries. History changes because time goes on, as well as new discoveries are made. Spiritual reality does not change because God does not change. Human opinions and cultures change, but that does not mean that human opinions and cultures change God does it? That is if you believe in God. If you don't believe God exists, you can change religion as much as you please, but if you believe God is real, then you would'nt dare change religion unless He gave you permission.
Christianity was a progressive revelation for thousands of years, beginning in the events recorded in the Old Testament. The Bible teaches that God's revelation has been completed. ( Galatians 1:8) If you don't believe the Bible, this argument is useless. Yet I believe the Bible, so the fact that the Bible says to beware of those who add or take away from it is the basis of my belief that the message of Christianity must not change. My beliefs and convictions do change as I discover more and more from the Bible, but the message of Christianity does not change, just my understanding of it, just like discoveries in Science and History change our understanding of Science and History, but do not necessarily change the realities themselves.
You may not agree with the premises above, but this is why Christians dont want Christianity to change.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/10/11 10:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Science changes because we make new discoveries.
Science doesn't change. Science is the best methodology for the understanding of the world around us, nothing more. It allows us to test our predictions of observations instead of relying on anecdotes and allows us to remove virtually all of our biases if performed well. Hypotheses, principles and our understanding of how the world works will change, but Science doesn't.
Quote:
I believe that true religion is based on reality, not man's opinions. The reality that true religion would teach of course would primarily involve spiritual things. Spiritual realities cannot be observed by human senses other than through Divine revelation.
Reality is what you make of it, and partially involves one's opinions, biases, and quirks. It's the result of your brain interpreting and processing the sensory stimuli that constantly bombard our sensory systems so it will necessarily obtain our own personal flair. Do you mean to say that true religion should be based on fact?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Science doesn't change. Science is the best methodology for the understanding of the world around us, nothing more. It allows us to test our predictions of observations instead of relying on anecdotes and allows us to remove virtually all of our biases if performed well. Hypotheses, principles and our understanding of how the world works will change, but Science doesn't.
I have never understood the necessity of most people to be all-science or all-religion. Albert Einstein believed that they should be in lock-step.
and the portion of religion that doesn't change is the fundamental ethics/morals. but, how those are interpreted or utilized can and has changed over time.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Science changes because we make new discoveries.
Science doesn't change. Science is the best methodology for the understanding of the world around us, nothing more. It allows us to test our predictions of observations instead of relying on anecdotes and allows us to remove virtually all of our biases if performed well. Hypotheses, principles and our understanding of how the world works will change, but Science doesn't.
Quote:
I believe that true religion is based on reality, not man's opinions. The reality that true religion would teach of course would primarily involve spiritual things. Spiritual realities cannot be observed by human senses other than through Divine revelation.
Reality is what you make of it, and partially involves one's opinions, biases, and quirks. It's the result of your brain interpreting and processing the sensory stimuli that constantly bombard our sensory systems so it will necessarily obtain our own personal flair. Do you mean to say that true religion should be based on fact?
Maybe Science doesnt change, ( I might have phrased that incorrectly), but what Scientists tell us does change over time based on new discoveries. There has always been gravity, the earth has always been round, and has always revolved around the sun, there have always been germs, and the the cells in our bodies have always contained DNA, we just havent always known it. Similarily, I contend that Christianity is a system that is based on facts that do not change, and whether or not we believe those facts have no bearing on whether or not they are so.
If God exists, He exists whether Loki believes in Him or not, and if He doesnt exist, then all the faith in the world will not change that fact. So we can't just say willy nilly, whatever you believe is true if it works for you. If I think that I can fly, that belief won't help me when I jump off a thirty story building,
These objections are not aimed at you,but at others who have said whatever you choose to believe is fine with you. I know what I['m saying is not popular, but it is consistant with my belief system.
By the way, when I said Christianity should'nt change, I mean the fundamental truths of Christianity. The way we worship, our way of practice, etc. does change, but not the basic tenets like there is one God, Jesus is God's Son, the Bible is the Word of God, etc.
In essentials unity, in questionable things liberty, in all things charity.
Yes I mean to say that religion should be based on fact if there is a God. If there is not a God, then it doesnt matter, you can believe whatever you want, and be just as correct as anyone else, but if there is a God and only one God then true religion should be based on fact. Even things that are symbolic like parables and apocalypse while not literal in themselves, represent literal truths.
If God is, then He exists as God, not as what we want Him to be.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/11/11 09:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Science doesn't change. Science is the best methodology for the understanding of the world around us, nothing more. It allows us to test our predictions of observations instead of relying on anecdotes and allows us to remove virtually all of our biases if performed well. Hypotheses, principles and our understanding of how the world works will change, but Science doesn't.
I have never understood the necessity of most people to be all-science or all-religion. Albert Einstein believed that they should be in lock-step.
and the portion of religion that doesn't change is the fundamental ethics/morals. but, how those are interpreted or utilized can and has changed over time.
Good post, thank you for clarifying that. I failed to mention what part of Christianity should not change. I believe that some of the methods and practices change in Christianity, but that the message and source of authority should stay the same. The only thing you said that I would respectfully differ with is that I would replace the word "interpreted" with "applied". I don't think the interpretation changes, (at least not in the Bible, which is the basis of my beliefs), but there can be many different ways that we can apply what we believe.
What does it say? ( Observation)
What did it mean to the original hearers/readers? ( interpretation)
How can I apply this to my life/situation? ( application)
BTW, I believe in Science, but realize that Science is constantly discovering new things, so Science doesnt have all the answers yet. Also, Science does not explain metaphysical things that can not be observed by the senses, or tested. like That's where religion, faith, and revelation comes in. Both faith and Science have their places.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Albert Einstein believed that they should be in lock-step.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not true.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
And
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
Are pretty damning to that argument.
Now, he does talk about a "cosmic religious feeling" in his essay Science and Religion. Which is:
Quote:
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.
The whole essay takes about 3 minutes to read tops. Plus, he writes well 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
There has always been gravity, the earth has always been round, and has always revolved around the sun, there have always been germs, and the the cells in our bodies have always contained DNA, we just havent always known it.
Yeah, more or less. The scientific method has brought us to where we are today as a civilization.
Quote:
Similarly, I contend that Christianity is a system that is based on facts that do not change, and whether or not we believe those facts have no bearing on whether or not they are so.
This is where I have a problem. There's really no similarity between a religious fact and a scientific fact. One is testable and based off observation, the other is steeped in spirituality, which Man knows only at the behest of God. As you said yourself, the perfect religion is based on a reality that is spiritually-based and unknowable (untestable) to our senses. So all we have to base a religious fact on is an interpretation, an opinion by a man, of a passage in a book. Now, if you're saying that a necessary fact is "belief in Christ, that he died for our sins, only to return from the dead three days later then ascend to heaven," then that's the main tenet to obtain entrance to heaven in Christianity. Philosophically, I don't think you can rightly call this fact. Fact has a connotation to it, a strong one, that says it is evidence-based. You could perhaps use "truth" though, since truth is subjective to the people and biases at hand.
Quote:
BTW, I believe in Science, but realize that Science is constantly discovering new things, so Science doesnt have all the answers yet. Also, Science does not explain metaphysical things that can not be observed by the senses, or tested. like That's where religion, faith, and revelation comes in. Both faith and Science have their places.
Same quibble, Science is a method, not a doctrine. Therefore, stating belief or disbelief is silly. It's literally a set of rules that help us explain the natural ways of the universe. And yes, by employing Science, we're still discovering aspects of how the world works. However, just because there is a lack evidence, doesn't mean we can pick and choose what we do and don't believe. There is a great deal of solid information out there on how our universe works. And also, since Science can only be used on observable and testable hypotheses, it can make no claim to elucidating the supernatural. Now, if the supernatural were to actively manifest, then we could apply Scientific principles to explain them. However, at that point, they'd be natural.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Are you saying that there is no evidence behind Christianity. How about the fullfilled prophecies in the Old Testament that were fullfilled in the life of Christ? If you read Psalm 22, it vividly depicts death by crucifiction. The last part of Daniel 9 places the coming of the Messiah between the rebuilding of the wall and city of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. The Old Testament basically predicts the lineage of Jesus, ( Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David), where He would be born, the time frame of when He would appear, the manner of His death, etc.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 01:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote Yeah, more or less. The scientific method has brought us to where we are today as a civilization. Quote. Yes, but the Bible was teaching many of these truths long before science discovered them. 5. THE BIBLE’S AMAZING SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY AND FORESIGHT A. The Sun ....the Bible teaches that the Sun is actually on a circuit through space. Writing of the Sun in Psalm 19:6, David said, “Its rising is from one end of heaven, and its circuit to the other end.” For many years critics scoffed at this verse, claiming that it taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Scientists at that time thought the Sun was stationary. However, it has been discovered in recent years that the Sun is in fact on a circuit through space, just like the Bible says. B. The Shape of the Earth When the rest of the world believed the Earth was flat, Isaiah declared that the world was round. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." When did Isaiah write these words? Between 740 and 680 B.C. That was at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested in his book On the Heavens, that the Earth might be a sphere. More than 2,000 years later some people still believed that Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) was going to sail off the edge of a flat planet in 1492! Another verse that speaks of the shape of the Earth is Job 26:10, where it teaches that God has “inscribed” a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness is where evening and morning occur. The boundary is a circle since the Earth is round. C. The Suspension of the Earth Before Isaac Newton discovered gravity Hindus believed that the Earth rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea. The Greeks believed that the mythical god Atlas carried the Earth on his shoulders. What did the Bible say? In one of the oldest books in the Bible, Job said in Job 26:7, “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650. D. The Stars Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus (190-120 B.C.) said there were exactly 1,026 stars. The astronomer, and mathematician Ptolemy said there were 1,056 stars. The German astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), counted 1,006. The whole thought of the stars being uncountable was contrary to modern science until the invention of the telescope. When Galileo first pointed his telescope to the heavens in 1608, we discovered there were a lot more stars than anybody had ever imagined, just as Jeremiah had said: Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.” Today, with the help of powerful telescopes and modern satellite photographs, scientists estimate the universe contains approximately 100 billion galaxies containing approximately 200 billion stars each. Carl Sagan (1934-1996), the world famous astronomer, said, “The total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth.” (Cosmos, p. 196). That is enough stars for every person alive on planet Earth to personally own approximately 2 trillion stars each. Dr. Mark Eastman says, “Counting at a rate of ten stars per second it would take over 100 trillion years. Surely the host of heaven cannot be numbered!” How did the authors of the Bible know that the stars were uncountable, that the Earth was round and hangs on nothing? Were they taking lucky guesses? I don't think so. Their flawless accuracy rules that out. The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:21 that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” God, who knows all there is to know about the universe He created, superintended the writing of the Bible to make sure that what He wanted written, was written. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=43
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 01:40 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
sure, Einstein viewed religion differently than a Christian, Islamist, etc. But he still believed in religion, faith, morals. The religion he chose was devoted to the science that he followed, which is every bit a religion with ideologies as well as those who corrupt those ideologies for their own benefit.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Science changes because we make new discoveries.
Science doesn't change. Science is the best methodology for the understanding of the world around us, nothing more. It allows us to test our predictions of observations instead of relying on anecdotes and allows us to remove virtually all of our biases if performed well. Hypotheses, principles and our understanding of how the world works will change, but Science doesn't.
Quote:
I believe that true religion is based on reality, not man's opinions. The reality that true religion would teach of course would primarily involve spiritual things. Spiritual realities cannot be observed by human senses other than through Divine revelation.
Reality is what you make of it, and partially involves one's opinions, biases, and quirks. It's the result of your brain interpreting and processing the sensory stimuli that constantly bombard our sensory systems so it will necessarily obtain our own personal flair. Do you mean to say that true religion should be based on fact?
re·al·i·ty noun \rē-ˈa-lə-tē\
plural re·al·i·ties
Definition of REALITY
1: the quality or state of being real
2a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs
Definition of REAL
1: of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)
2a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine <real gold>; also : being precisely what the name implies <a real professional> b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality <saw a real live celebrity> <a story of real life> (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities <left school to live in the real world> (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard <a real gas> — compare ideal 3b c : having objective independent existence <unable to believe that what he saw was real> ( I did not include the definition that related to numbers, ( real numbers.)
Mariam Websters
Which of the definitions of real refers to things that are based on our opinions and biases, and quirks, and which one is the proper definition based on the context of my statement?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Are you saying that there is no evidence behind Christianity.
I'm not saying a man named Jesus didn't exist, and that the religion that sprang up from his teachings doesn't exist. What I'm debating is your use of the word "fact" and what constitutes as it. You can't point to an unverifiable bible verse and use it as fact, it's a total misuse of the word.
In your own words in this thread you've said that spiritual reality is unknowable and untestable by Man because we can't perceive it, it's beyond our senses. That makes religion extremely UNfactual as there's no way to verify it. However, that doesn't mean there's no truth.
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, more or less. The scientific method has brought us to where we are today as a civilization.
Yes, but the Bible was teaching many of these truths long before science discovered them.
I'm not even going to go through those examples one by one because a few have some gross mischaracterizations. I'll just say that hindsight is 20/20 and it's the same reason Nostradamus has been "right" so many times. Humans are amazing at pattern recognition. It's the reason we see shapes in clouds, faces in the moon and on Mars, and religious figures on our grilled cheese. Sometimes what we perceive is wrong because it's tinted with our biases and needs.
However, on one hand you praise No Logo and agree that science and religion have their places, but then immediately start back in on this stupid pissing contest of "who's better?" You can't have it both ways. I will say that there are many religious figureheads in the annals of history who have furthered our understanding of the world because they used scientific methods. They're not mutually exclusive ideals and are not in direct competition with one another. Science has led us to better our physical world and make it easier for our species to survive, and that's OK. When I said "The scientific method has brought us to where we are today as a civilization," I was talking about my ability to sit in a classroom, on a small computer, and type this out, all without any wires. Or take an organism and change it's genetic code to benefit the human race. We live in an amazing secular time, that was my only point.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Same quibble, Science is a method, not a doctrine. Therefore, stating belief or disbelief is silly.
Stating that one believes the scientific method is a valid, ( though the conclusions we make may at times be fallible), way of explaining the universe is silly? Is this a disagreement based on semantics. What I meant by the word "believe", is the conviction in the ability of science to explain natural things
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 10:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
My point was that our personal reality is subjective. There are many philosophical discussions on this. We can go with this definition though, I'm not picky.
So which one of the definitions of "real" pertains to the spiritual reality that we can't sense? There's an illogicality in your usage of the words "spiritual" and "reality" together, especially when you say the spiritual is something far beyond Man's ability to comprehend yet define it as "occurring or existing in actuality."
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
I'm not trying to compare religion and science and say which one is better. I am just referring to what I believe to be one of the "evidences" for the reliability of the Bible, that is that many things we accept as fact today, were taught in the Bible thousands of years ago.
These are not obscure passages that can mean anything, they are very clear. People wrongly assumed that the Psalm 19:6 taught that the earth revolved around the sun, ( sadly, this is an instance where many Christians misunderstood the Bible as well as non-believers). They thought that the Bible contradicted science, but the discovery mentioned in the article showed that the Bible and Science were in agreement all along. The earth does revolve around the sun, and the sun does move in a circuit. The Bible never said the earth revolved around the sun, people interpreted it that way. That is why I think believers need to be careful not to put their own interpretations on the Bible.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 10:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Sorry didn't read well enough.
As I said, those excerpts are extremely subjective and liberal in their interpretation. A circle is not a sphere, the Sun doesn't move in a circuit, etc. It's fitting facts to your interpretation after the fact. The same thing occurs in creationism and intelligent design.
Last edited by Draftdayz; 05/12/11 10:29 AM.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
See the comment above. Are you comparing the prophesies in the Bible to Nostradamus? I have read both the Bible and Nostradamus, and there is no comparison. Nostradamus is very obscure, and written in such a way that you can make it mean anything. The Bible is very clear for the most part, even though parts of it are above our finite understanding, ( like the example of Psalm 19:6) When it says God hung the earth on nothing, or that He sits above the circle of the earth that is pretty clear language, not like this.,, The penultimate of the surname of Prophet Will take Diana [Thursday] for his day and rest: He will wander because of a frantic head, And delivering a great people from subjection Which I read referred to the assasination of JFK 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Are you saying the sun doesnt move through space? And a circle and sphere are both round arent they?
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 10:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Are you comparing the prophesies in the Bible to Nostradamus?
No, I was using it as a reference to our pattern recognition abilities, how we "see things in normal everyday occurrences."
Quote:
Are you saying the sun doesnt move through space?
No, I'm saying that it doesn't make a circuit through space. In a circuit, you eventually come back to the same place you started. The Sun never does that. As it transverses the Milky Way it moves whichever way gravity pulls it. There is no circuitry in its movement.
Quote:
And a circle and sphere are both round arent they?
Heh, try pulling that one on a mathematician. The physics and calculations involved are literally separated by a dimension.
You have to admit that hindsight bias could be playing a role here. Again, we're talking about someone's interpretation of passages within the bible and they're applying current knowledge to it. It seems a little like grasping at straws and vying for legitimacy. What does that source say about the flood? Is there and interpretation of our current understanding that backs up what occurs in the Bible?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
1. Most of the prophesies in the Bible were very specific, with very little room for alternate meanings. Micah said that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, Isaiah said that He would be rejected by the Jewish nation, David said his hands and feet would be pierced, Daniel said that He would die sometime before the destruction of the rebuilt Jewish temple, etc.
2. The Hebrew word that was translated circle in Isaiah can also mean circuit or compass.
3. I dont know exactly how the sun travels through space, but it doesnt just move in a straight line does it. The Hebrew word that is translated circuit can also be translated coming round or turning. It is my understanding that the word circuit can mean the act of going or moving around in English as well. The Hebrew word translated end, ( used twice) is Qatsah. It means end, extremity, or outermost part. So literally this verse says, "...the suns goes forth from one end of heaven and follows it's course to the other (end)."
Also remember that the literary genre of both of these passages is poetry. Biblical poetry uses poetic expressions to represent literal things.
The types of Bible literature are History, Poetry, Epistle, Prophecy, and Apocalyptic. The general rules of each type of literature should be applied when interpreting it.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 02:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Post deleted by LA Brown fan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
I will say that there are many religious figureheads in the annals of history who have furthered our understanding of the world because they used scientific methods. They're not mutually exclusive ideals and are not in direct competition with one another. Science has led us to better our physical world and make it easier for our species to survive, and that's OK. When I said "The scientific method has brought us to where we are today as a civilization," I was talking about my ability to sit in a classroom, on a small computer, and type this out, all without any wires. Or take an organism and change it's genetic code to benefit the human race. We live in an amazing secular time, that was my only point.
I agree with you on these points. I quoted them, posted, and then quoted them again , because I didnt know how to quote only part of your post. So I am agreeing with your statements, not myself, as it appears. 
Blessings
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 01:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I dont know exactly how the sun travels through space, but it doesnt just move in a straight line does it.
Nah. You have to think about how gravity fields of large (planets and bigger) interact a bit. The Sun is influenced by everything around it, including the planets that circle it. To think about the Galaxy and how the solar system moves through it, imagine the galaxy as a frisbee. The solar system moves through the flat plane of the fisbee due to the gravitational pull exerted by the middle of the galaxy. However, any large body out there is capable of influencing how and where our solar system moves as we go up and down through the galactic plan. We're nowhere close to where we started, or where we'll end up.
Quote:
So literally this verse says, "...the suns goes forth from one end of heaven and follows it's course to the other (end)."
You don't think that simply means the Sun rises in the east, and sets in the west?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Here is the passage in context.
1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 03:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
BTW, interesting post regarding how the solar system moves about in the galaxy. Have you ever marvelled at the beauty and the order of the universe. The point that the Psalmist is making is that He sees the starry skies as a silent witness that there is a God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Have you ever marvelled at the beauty and the order of the universe.
Every single day. It's why I'm a biologist.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
That's great. That is basically what the Psalmist is doing as well, marvelling at the wonderful starry heavens. Here's another, if I may be permitted. It is a very beautiful Psalm.
Psalm 8
Psalm 8[a]
For the director of music. According to gittith. A psalm of David.
1 LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
in the heavens.
2 Through the praise of children and infants
you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?[c]
5 You have made them[d] a little lower than the angels[e]
and crowned them[f] with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their[g] feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the animals of the wild,
8 the birds in the sky,
and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
9 LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 04:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
OK, so the actual lines are nothing whatsoever like what you originally said.
The passage says the sun goes from one end of the heavens to the other, this would imply the sun going around the earth, which is incorrect. Another interpretation would be that it goes from one end of the galaxy or universe to the other, also incorrect. There is significant question that the particular line is specifically referring to the sun.
What you have is a bunch of verse that may contain deep meaning or may be just total nonsense. At least some of it is meaningless babble, IMO ALL of it is.
Describing the earth as a circle as proof that it is round ignores the fact that the flat earth believers also believed the earth was a circle. A circle is FLAT, a sphere is round. If that's the best you got, just move along.
The real fact is that neither is true, the Earth is actually egg-shaped, technical term an oblate spheroid, one end is flattened and the other somewhat pointy. Show me a passage which affirms that and I will be suitably impressed.
What you have shown so far as "proof" is laughable. Silly, witless, ignorant, brainless, shall I go on?
I have had this argument with many Bible-thumpers, including seminary students and ordained priests. It is pointless, they generally make things up as they go along, "interpret" passages any way they please, ignore parts they can't explain, and finally fall back on "you just have to have faith." I have faith in what I can see, do, and replicate. I have faith in my own abilities, which came from environment, heredity, random chance, and hard work. I have zero faith in mumbo-jumbo which is better suited for a witch doctor or someone from the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
OK, so the actual lines are nothing whatsoever like what you originally said.
The passage says the sun goes from one end of the heavens to the other, this would imply the sun going around the earth, which is incorrect. Another interpretation would be that it goes from one end of the galaxy or universe to the other, also incorrect. There is significant question that the particular line is specifically referring to the sun.
What you have is a bunch of verse that may contain deep meaning or may be just total nonsense. At least some of it is meaningless babble, IMO ALL of it is.
Describing the earth as a circle as proof that it is round ignores the fact that the flat earth believers also believed the earth was a circle. A circle is FLAT, a sphere is round. If that's the best you got, just move along.
The real fact is that neither is true, the Earth is actually egg-shaped, technical term an oblate spheroid, one end is flattened and the other somewhat pointy. Show me a passage which affirms that and I will be suitably impressed.
What you have shown so far as "proof" is laughable. Silly, witless, ignorant, brainless, shall I go on?
I have had this argument with many Bible-thumpers, including seminary students and ordained priests. It is pointless, they generally make things up as they go along, "interpret" passages any way they please, ignore parts they can't explain, and finally fall back on "you just have to have faith." I have faith in what I can see, do, and replicate. I have faith in my own abilities, which came from environment, heredity, random chance, and hard work. I have zero faith in mumbo-jumbo which is better suited for a witch doctor or someone from the Middle Ages.
Excuse my ignorance, but isnt it true that our solar system orbits the center of the milky way. I'm not a scientist so I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the the planets orbited the sun and the solar system orbits the center of the galaxy.
The first problem with your argument about the circle is that, ( as far as I know), there is no word in Ancient Hebrew for oblate spheroid, or even sphere. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the writers of the Old Testament used the best words available to them.
Now, lets look at what the text says...
Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
It says that God sits on the circle of the earth. The Hebrew word for sit also means dwell or abide. Is the writer saying that God is sitting on a flat earth, as if it were a stool? Of course not, for one of the great confessions of Judaism and Christianity is that "the heavens are God's throne, and the earth is His footstool", and the heaven of heavens, ( universe) cannot contain Him. Could it be that the circle of the earth is the circle around the earth, and the passage is saying that God is encompassing the earth?
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/12/11 11:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
OK, so the actual lines are nothing whatsoever like what you originally said.
The passage says the sun goes from one end of the heavens to the other, this would imply the sun going around the earth, which is incorrect. Another interpretation would be that it goes from one end of the galaxy or universe to the other, also incorrect. There is significant question that the particular line is specifically referring to the sun.
What you have is a bunch of verse that may contain deep meaning or may be just total nonsense. At least some of it is meaningless babble, IMO ALL of it is.
Describing the earth as a circle as proof that it is round ignores the fact that the flat earth believers also believed the earth was a circle. A circle is FLAT, a sphere is round. If that's the best you got, just move along.
The real fact is that neither is true, the Earth is actually egg-shaped, technical term an oblate spheroid, one end is flattened and the other somewhat pointy. Show me a passage which affirms that and I will be suitably impressed.
What you have shown so far as "proof" is laughable. Silly, witless, ignorant, brainless, shall I go on?
I have had this argument with many Bible-thumpers, including seminary students and ordained priests. It is pointless, they generally make things up as they go along, "interpret" passages any way they please, ignore parts they can't explain, and finally fall back on "you just have to have faith." I have faith in what I can see, do, and replicate. I have faith in my own abilities, which came from environment, heredity, random chance, and hard work. I have zero faith in mumbo-jumbo which is better suited for a witch doctor or someone from the Middle Ages.
Excuse my ignorance, but isnt it true that our solar system orbits the center of the milky way. I'm not a scientist so I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the the planets orbited the sun and the solar system orbits the center of the galaxy.
The first problem with your argument about the circle is that, ( as far as I know), there is no word in Ancient Hebrew for oblate spheroid, or even sphere. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the writers of the Old Testament used the best words available to them.
Now, lets look at what the text says...
Is. 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in...
It says that God sits on the circle of the earth. The Hebrew word for sit also means dwell or abide. Is the writer saying that God is sitting on a flat earth, as if it were a stool? Of course not, for one of the great confessions of Judaism and Christianity is that "the heavens are God's throne, and the earth is His footstool", and the heaven of heavens, ( universe) cannot contain Him. Could it be that the circle of the earth is the circle around the earth, and the passage is saying that God is encompassing the earth?
I wanted to do a little clarification on this, as I was imprecise in the last post.
1. The word translated "sit" here is the Hebrew word "Yashab" which means to dwell, remain, sit, abide.
2. God is said to sit or abide upon the "circle", ( or compass) of the earth. Nowhere does the Bible say that the surface of the earth is God's dwelling place or the place where He sits, ( heaven is God's throne according to the Bible).
3. A variant reading is He sits "above" the circle of the earth.
a. He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, ( NIV)
b. God sits above the circle of the earth. ( NLT)
c. It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth. ( ASV)
4. The inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers... God is in an exalted position for above the earth, so exalted that all the inhabitants of the earth are seen as if they are grasshoppers, or more properly Locusts.
The idea is that God is so exalted, that, as he looks down from that elevated station, all the inhabitants of the world appear to him as locusts - a busy, agirated, moving, impatient multitude, spread over the vast circle of the earth beneath him - as locusts spread in almost interminable bands over the plains in the East. ( Barnes notes on the Bible)
5. What would the appearance of the earth be from high in space? Would you see a sphere or a circle. The writer is saying that God is high above the earth beholding it's inhabitants. From God's perspective, high above the earth, the earth.would appear to be a circle. The word circle at this point is not referring to the shape of the earth but a circular pattern, but don't stop there...
6. God is not merely at one point above the earth, for the Bible teaches God is Omnipresent, and He does not merely see one part of the earth, because He is all seeing, so God sees the whole earth from all perspectives simultaneously from His lofty position. He sees all things from East to West, North to South at all times.
7. If God sees the earth from all perspectives simultaneously, and it is always a circle before Him, then that would indicate that the earth is a sphere.. If it were a flat circle, it would not appear as a circle from all perspectives.
8. There is no ancient Hebrew word that would better describe a sphere than the one Isaiah used, (Khug) . It should be noted that there are some who contend that the Hebrew word "Khug", while often translated Circle in Engish had the idea of a sphericity or roundness. ( seeJonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1999). The prophet could have chosen is "Duwr", which is translated "ball" in Isaiah 29:3, but that word does not indicate spherity any more than Khug, because it is also used in the passage below...
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
It should be obvious that the meaning of Duwr in this passage, ( translated round), is not sphere. The simple truth is Isaiah was using the best language available to him at that time.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/13/11 07:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Excuse my ignorance, but isnt it true that our solar system orbits the center of the milky way. I'm not a scientist so I may be wrong, but I was under the impression the the planets orbited the sun and the solar system orbits the center of the galaxy.
Not quite. The galaxy as a whole turns around a central point so our solar system doesn't actually "orbit" anything. The whole thing is held together by gravity, the turning is a result of that weak force. Gravity can act over large distances to pull us closer in, or farther out, in the spinning disk.
Quote:
Could it be that the circle of the earth is the circle around the earth, and the passage is saying that God is encompassing the earth?
That sounds like another interpretation. How do we know that one is correct over Nelsons? Because it fits with what you know as true? Do you see how your interpretation could be a result hindsight bias? Or do we chalk yours up to Divine Revelation?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
1. Thank you for the info on the Galaxy and Solar System. I will admit that it could be that the passage in Psalms is not referring to the movement of the sun, but could be a poetic way of describing sunrise and sunset. Or it could be referring to something science hasnt discovered yet. Nevertheless, it does not teach that the sun revolved around the earth, as some contend. That is their own interpretation. That was basically the point the article was trying to make on that issue, that some wrongly assume the Bible teaches that the sun revolves around the earth, which is not true.
2. I am not trying to say that my interpretation on the circle passage is better than anyone else's. I am responding to the fallacious accusation of people that say that the Bible teaches the world is flat. The Bible says nowhere that the world is flat. If you read the post that I posted after the one you just quoted, I give a detailed argument why the passage in Isaiah, ( God sits on the circle of the earth...) does not teach a flat earth. The explaination I gave is based on interpreting the passage in Isaiah by examining it in its immediete context, it's context in relation with the other teachings of the Bible, the language in which it was written, etc. The first thing one should do when interpreting the Bible is examine what it says, and then determine through context what it meant to the original readers People who take these passages and say that they teach that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth are taking single passages out of their context and applying their own meaning to them without regard to the context of the language used, the type of literature, the surrounding verses that make up it's immediete context, and their relationship to the rest of the Bible. Their is a method to interpreting Biblical literature, just as their is a method to observing and interpreting the universe.
A good example is people take the word circle in English and say, "Aha, the Bible teaches the world is flat!" Yet do they take the time to go to the original Hebrew and say what the word in the original language meant? Did they take into account that there is not a word in ancient Hebrew that adequetely describes a sphere?
Lastly, I did not attack Nelson's beliefs or interpretation, he vehemently attacked mine, ( just read his post), which is Ok. I just wanted to let him know that there were other possiblilities besides his assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
For starters, it was YOU who stated that the Bible "revealed" that the earth is round, and not flat. It actually could have meant one, or the other, or both, or neither.
To believe, literally, in something that is so amazingly open to interpretation, is just beyond my comprehension. If that's your thing, have at it.
But, as I pointed out earlier, such blind obedience leaves people open to leaders who interpret the vague texts to justify all sorts of evil. If you wish to believe that the "good christians" do not participate in these evils, you may continue to delude yourself in that fashion. Just don't try to teach fairy tales to my kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Lastly, I did not attack Nelson's beliefs or interpretation
Oh, I know. But you get my point about hindsight bias when interpreting passages right? You can't take a passage, interpret it's message to fit current ideas and proclaim prophesy or foresight.
Quote:
The Bible says nowhere that the world is flat.
I'm not disagreeing. I don't really think the writers of the Bible really thought about the "How" of things. They just attributed it God and were happy with that. Anyone who tries to attribute something from the Bible to our scientifically-based knowledge runs the risk of having not only their hypothesis called into question, but their beliefs too when evidence comes in counter to the idea. It's the whole reason there's a big kurfuffle with Young-Earth, Intelligent Design, creationists. Nowhere in the Bible is there a passage that says how old the Earth is. Yet people have clung to this 100 year old, man-interpreted, idea that the Universe is 6,000 years old when there is literally a mountain of evidence showing otherwise. It's denialism.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The first problem with your argument about the circle is that, ( as far as I know), there is no word in Ancient Hebrew for oblate spheroid, or even sphere. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the writers of the Old Testament used the best words available to them.
Quote:
Did they take into account that there is not a word in ancient Hebrew that adequetely describes a sphere?
Duwr.
It means 'ball', and is used in the Old Testament no less than two or three times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
The first problem with your argument about the circle is that, ( as far as I know), there is no word in Ancient Hebrew for oblate spheroid, or even sphere. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Otherwise, the writers of the Old Testament used the best words available to them.
Quote:
Did they take into account that there is not a word in ancient Hebrew that adequetely describes a sphere?
Duwr.
It means 'ball', and is used in the Old Testament no less than two or three times.
I mentioned 2 instances of Duwr in one of my previous posts. I am posting the quote here again. If you know of a third, (or more instances), you can post it/them and I will take a look at what they say.
Here is the previous comment where I mention the word Duwr.
(The prophet could have chosen is "Duwr", which is translated "ball" in Isaiah 29:3, but that word does not indicate spherity any more than Khug, because it is also used in the passage below...
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.)
The word translated round about is Duwr, and it clearly doesnt mean ball or sphere. Did the soldiers encamp the city in a ball or a sphere? Secondly, a literal translation of Isaiah 29:3, ( the second passage where Duwr is used) would read "He will surely wrap you up, ( Hebrew Tsanaph), and toss you like a ball into a large country...", so the ball described here is something that is wrapped up, or rolled tightly into a ball. The context determines what Duwr means in this passage, something that is rolled up in a ball and cast away. Does this adequetely describe the earth.
That would be like using a crumpled up piece of paper to describe the earth.
You may want to read my earlier posts that talk about what "God sitting on the circle of the earth means.
Adendum: By the way, lest any misunderstand, the casting away of the nation mentioned in Isaiah 29:3 was not permanent, as if God rejected them like trash. It was a temporary exile that was meant to discipline them as children, and then restore them to the land later. Jeremiah explains this in his writing, and God restored the people to their land, just as God promised.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 05/13/11 12:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.)
The word translated round about is Duwr, and it clearly doesnt mean ball or sphere. Did the soldiers encamp the city in a ball or a sphere? Secondly, a literal translation of Isaiah 29:3, ( the second passage where Duwr is used) would read "He will surely wrap you up, ( Hebrew Tsanaph), and toss you like a ball into a large country...", so the ball described here is something that is wrapped up, or rolled tightly into a ball. The context determines what Duwr means in this passage, something that is rolled up in a ball and cast away. Does this adequetely describe the earth.
That would be like using a crumpled up piece of paper to describe the earth.
You claimed "there is not a word in ancient Hebrew that adequetely describes a sphere".
There is. Duwr. It's traditional definition is a ball, circle, or to encircle.
Now you come back and nitpick it ... a crumpled up piece of paper isn't 'adequate'.
Meanwhile, you make the oddest leaps and bounds to tie the Bible to scientific discovery.
So, in essence, you're saying that a crumpled up piece of paper isn't an adequate description of the earth, but a circle is?
I'm not going to spend much time debating ancient Hebrew ... you think and feel how you want, and I'd encourage you to express that, but you are getting absolutely murdered trying to make the points you're trying to make regarding the Bible as a scientific text.
It's not a scientific text. Not in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Lastly, I did not attack Nelson's beliefs or interpretation
Oh, I know. But you get my point about hindsight bias when interpreting passages right? You can't take a passage, interpret it's message to fit current ideas and proclaim prophesy or foresight.
Quote:
The Bible says nowhere that the world is flat.
I'm not disagreeing. I don't really think the writers of the Bible really thought about the "How" of things. They just attributed it God and were happy with that.
It's the whole reason there's a big kurfuffle with Young-Earth, Intelligent Design, creationists. Nowhere in the Bible is there a passage that says how old the Earth is. Yet people have clung to this 100 year old, man-interpreted, idea that the Universe is 6,000 years old when there is literally a mountain of evidence showing otherwise. It's denialism.
On your first point- are these passages demonstrations of foresight, or are their interpretations merely hindsight. Everyone must judge for themselves.
Psalm 22:16- Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierced my hands and my feet
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
Zechariah 12:10- They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son.
Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
6 All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the Lord laid on him
the sins of us all.
Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and treated harshly,
yet he never said a word.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
8 Unjustly condemned,
he was led away.
No one cared that he died without descendants,
that his life was cut short in midstream.[c]
But he was struck down
for the rebellion of my people.
9 He had done no wrong
and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal;
he was put in a rich man’s grave.
Daniel 9:26-And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary... ( there were only two times in history when the sanctuary was destroyed, once by Babylon which happened before this passage was written, and one in AD 70, about 37 years after the crucifiction of Christ.
Micah 5:2 [a]But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,
are only a small village among all the people of Judah.
Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you,
one whose origins are from the distant past.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The vision
|
|
