from the article :

from the article :

ahahhaahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, that was written in like the 3d or 4th century. So again you fualt ancietn people for being ancient. Even though the Greeks already knew better, there were still good reasons for thinking the earth was flat in the 3d or fourth century. If you didn't have the math and you didn't have a space program how would you know? There was a way that Aristorchus (I think) discovered the answer, but even that wasn't widely known and isn't necessarily fool proof. So how would you know?

And do you imagine that this is some official creedal statement that all Christians have to beleive? No, it's that guy's opinion. I obviously meant I don't know o fany Chrsitain since 1600 who beleive in a flat earth.

You think there is no truth of the phsyce? You think there is no truth in fiction? When Huck Finn tears up the peice of paper and resolves to free Jim from Salvery even though he has been told that abolitionists go to hell, and he utters "I'll just go to hell then because it's right!" or words to that effect, you think there is no truth in that? It didnt' happen. There was never a Huck Finn, but is there not truth in what is being conveyed?

Why is it that sketpics forget everything they learned in English class when they look at the bible. I assume you have taken an English class in school?

Meta =>Why would you expect the OT to be a science text book? God didnt tell them about nuclear fission, why should he tell them about the shape of the earth? Why expect the Bible to have scientific truth in it? Why is that important? That's for man to disocover and it was largely though the efforts of Christians that he did discover it. But why should the Bible tell him about it? The Bible assumes the cultural background and environment of the ancient world for exactly the reason I speak of in the thread on redaction; because revelation isnt just a booming voice demanding ver batem dictation it's a human record of people's experiences of God.

It's not a sicence text book. Why should it be?


But there are also verses where it says, in Job, God sits above the circle of the earth which could imply that it's round.

Metacrock - your claim that no Christians have believed in a flat earth since the 17th century is ridiculous. They believe it allright and they are just the people at the very far end of the YEC and creationist movements, just as you are at the liberal end. They are your brothers. Why do you disown them?

I assume you failed to read the article. Your reaction is precisely what is documented in the paper. Most YECS look down on the the flat-earthers just as you look down on the YECS and just as those of us that realise the whole shebang is a load of nonsense look down on YOU.

[LP on Lactantius on the absurdity of the roundness of the Earth; from the http://www.newadvent.org translation]

Metacrock: ahahhaahahahahahaahahahahahahaha, that was written in like the 3d or 4th century. So again you fualt ancietn people for being ancient. Even though the Greeks already knew better, there were still good reasons for thinking the earth was flat in the 3d or fourth century. If you didn't have the math and you didn't have a space program how would you know? There was a way that Aristorchus (I think) discovered the answer, but even that wasn't widely known and isn't necessarily fool proof. So how would you know?

LP: Lactantius was someone who was in a position to appreciate the demonstration that the Earth is shaped like a ball; he makes a lot of mention of pagan philosophers and their beliefs. Yet he laughed instead of trying to understand.

And Aristarchus of Samos was one of the first to propose Copernicanism, not round-earthism; we don't know who came up with the round-Earth hypothesis, but Aristotle does state it clearly in _On the Heavens_ (available online).

Metacrock: Why is it that sketpics forget everything they learned in English class when they look at the bible. I assume you have taken an English class in school?

LP: What was I supposed to have learned in English class?

Metacrock: Why would you expect the OT to be a science text book? God didnt tell them about nuclear fission, why should he tell them about the shape of the earth? Why expect the Bible to have scientific truth in it? Why is that important?

LP: Where is the disclaimer in the Bible that states all this? Why doesn't the Biblical God warn his worshippers that some parts of His Book are not meant literally? If I was a god, I certainly would not want to be misunderstood. Would you?

Metacrock: That's for man to disocover and it was largely though the efforts of Christians that he did discover it.

LP: Who worked it out from the Bible, right? I'd like to see how one comes up with nuclear fission from the Bible.

Metacrock: But why should the Bible tell him about it? The Bible assumes the cultural background and environment of the ancient world for exactly the reason I speak of in the thread on redaction; because revelation isnt just a booming voice demanding ver batem dictation it's a human record of people's experiences of God.

LP: Very ingenious. And I note that the Bible itself features a "booming voice demanding verbatim dictation" in some places; IMO, it's a more efficient and less ambiguous form of revelation.

Metacrock: It's not a sicence text book. Why should it be?

LP: Tell that to your friendly neighborhood fundamentalist some time. To a fundamentalist, the Bible is true, and that's that. Without such convoluted qualifications. Which makes fundamentalism a wonderfully simple creed.

Metacrock: But there are also verses where it says, in Job, God sits above the circle of the earth which could imply that it's round.

LP: However, the Book of Revelation states that the Earth has four corners.

So "four corners" must mean it's speaking of the shape of the earth? Anyway provide the specific verses in Revelation and let's see exactly what they're talking about.