FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2001, 02:55 AM   #1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Biblical accuracy : Either it is true or it isn't : THE FLAT EARTH.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Evolution is a scientific fairy-tale just as the "flat-earth theory" was in the 12th century.

-- Edward Blick, scientific creationist

Poor flat-earthers! Few modern intellectual movements have been so widely scorned and misunderstood. Among Christians, religious tolerance and ecumunism seem to break down at the edge of the earth. The preceding quotation suggests the contempt which most "scientific creationists" feel for the flat-earthers. Comparing them to "evolutionists" is an especially low blow, since the flat-earthers have always been in the forefront of the battle against evolution.

....
</font>
I feel sorry for these people - not just because they believe a load of rubbish, but because in a way they at least deserve some respect for having a consistent methodology, something which most creationists are woefully lacking. The fact that it is a consistently idiotic methodology is unfortunate.

Any creationists out there should read this and take a good look in the mirror.

It is an amusing read anyway; I particularly liked the reference to :

"Geocentrist J.R.L. Lange, author of 'The Copernican System, the Greatest Absurdity in the History of Human Thought"'

This could be straight out of an entry in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, except for the fact that this book was actually written.

Poor flat-earthers.

------------------------

I have started this under science & skepticism for general debate but also under BC&A for this reason :

Surely the flat-earthers have a point - If you are going to take the Bible as a more reliable source of information than orthodox science then surely you must take all of it, not bits. Once you doubt geocentrism and flat earth theory then you must doubt all of it.
 
Old 05-30-2001, 03:02 AM   #2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Your position on the Bible is not fully articulated here. Please explain briefly what you think Christians must believe about the Bible and its contents, and why. Then there will be room to discuss your explicit arguments. Radical liberal theologians, for instance, have no problem with the claim that the Bible is inaccurate.

Cheers,
Dan
 
Old 05-30-2001, 04:22 AM   #3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DanLewis:
Your position on the Bible is not fully articulated here. Please explain briefly what you think Christians must believe about the Bible and its contents, and why. Then there will be room to discuss your explicit arguments. Radical liberal theologians, for instance, have no problem with the claim that the Bible is inaccurate.

Cheers,
Dan
</font>
Hello Dan.

I will quote from the article :

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.” Like all flat-earthers, Hampden also accepted the doctrine of creation in six solar days. Commenting on the latter, he wrote, “If he can prove ... that days do not mean days, then is the infidel fully justified in laughing to scorn every other phrase and every other statement, from the first verse to the last in the Bible.” Modern creationists feel the same about evolution. As Duane Gish once put it, “You really cannot believe the Bible and the theory of evolution both.”

</font>
All I am saying is that once you start saying that bits of the Bible are not literally true, but metaphors or poetic imagery, then where do you stop? How do you know when to accept orthodox science and when to reject it? I am saying that the flat-earthers, unlike most creationists, at least have a consistent methodology.

I am not a Christian. But my own personal philosophy is critically dependent on having no internal inconsistencies or contradictions. I take modern science as an evolving truth, and look to logic, maths and mysticism for answers not supplied by science. But all of it must be consistent, or I reject it. The flat-earthers are also consistent, even if sadly wrong.

I have no axe to grind with liberal Christians, but it must be pointed out that there is no real line that can be drawn. The liberal Christian is at risk of becoming so liberal (and rational) that he is no longer a Christian at all. I am thinking of the likes of John Spong, who does not even accept a physical resurection.

 
Old 05-30-2001, 07:21 AM   #4
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

By reading in between the lines, you almost get the impression that he doesn't even believe in a historical Jesus (Spong, that is).
 
Old 05-30-2001, 08:24 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thinker:
All I am saying is that once you start saying that bits of the Bible are not literally true, but metaphors or poetic imagery, then where do you stop? How do you know when to accept orthodox science and when to reject it? I am saying that the flat-earthers, unlike most creationists, at least have a consistent methodology.

I am not a Christian. But my own personal philosophy is critically dependent on having no internal inconsistencies or contradictions. I take modern science as an evolving truth, and look to logic, maths and mysticism for answers not supplied by science. But all of it must be consistent, or I reject it. The flat-earthers are also consistent, even if sadly wrong.

I have no axe to grind with liberal Christians, but it must be pointed out that there is no real line that can be drawn. The liberal Christian is at risk of becoming so liberal (and rational) that he is no longer a Christian at all. I am thinking of the likes of John Spong, who does not even accept a physical resurection.

</font>
Category mistake. You are assuming that it is meant to be a certain kind of writting. Would you say "O that Dickens, Litlle Nell contradicts Tiny Tim so his novels are wortheless?" You are assuming that it's meant to be a scientific book or a history book. It's not. Parts of it are mythological because they are meant to convey truth in the way that mythology conveys it.

The whole Bible wasn't written as a monotlythic work by a single author, remember? it was chosen out of writtings that had already been written by 44 different authors (or so) over a couple of thousand years. So there are a lot of different genres and different intensions.

The way to "draw the line" is"

1) it's all true, it's just a question of how each idividual work convey's truth, either mythologically or literally.

2) Use textual methods!
 
Old 05-30-2001, 08:26 AM   #7
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Someone7:
[/b]</font>
I don't know any Christians who are flat earthers.


[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 30, 2001).]
 
Old 05-30-2001, 09:02 AM   #8
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Church Father Lactantius on the Shape of the Earth (Divine Institutes, 3:24):

How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false.

The clear implication is that the Earth is flat, because if it was shaped like a ball, the other side (antipodes) would have all these absurd occurrences.
 
Old 05-30-2001, 09:07 AM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Metacrock:
...Parts of it are mythological because they are meant to convey truth in the way that mythology conveys it.</font>
Oh. THAT kind or truth!
 
Old 05-30-2001, 09:13 AM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

OK......

Can someone please point me to the Bible verse or verses that speak of the earth being flat?
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:00 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.