Freethought & Rationalism Archive

buckshot23 · 12-07-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

That's only because you don't understand what's being said. If your bible is open to "interpretation" then it's not worth a damn..... oh wait..... it isn't worth a damn.

Thanks for your worthless opinion. With all due respect.

Quote:

Bible: the Earth is imovable:
* I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
* Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
* Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
* Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
* Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Science: the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Those verses don't say the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. You need to do better than that.

Quote:

The Bible: Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."

Why not attack the tree that is large enough to see this? That should be a hint. Not literal.

Quote:

Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (cosmos) in their glory." Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.

Or you don't take this literally as being on a giant mountain.

Quote:

Science: The Earth is an oblate spheroid.

Bible: The earth is not flat
Me: Why should I trust your interpretation?

RBH · 12-07-2005, 06:26 PM

Folks, I repeat, this is not BC&H. They're already mad at me over there for splitting and moving one thread to them. Let's don't do another, please. You want to argue interpretations of the bible, do it there, please, not here.

RBH
E/C Moderator

Mountain Man · 12-07-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Thanks for your worthless opinion. With all due respect.

No opinion was given. That was a fact.

Quote:

Those verses don't say the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. You need to do better than that.

They say the Earth is fixed in place. Unmovable and unmoving. The bible lied. You need to do better.

Quote:

Why not attack the tree that is large enough to see this? That should be a hint. Not literal.

Oh, back to that interpretation bit.

Quote:

Bible: The earth is not flat
Me: Why should I trust your interpretation?

Because the bible says the Earth is flat. Trying to reword the bible to dishonestly make it look better is not a very bright way to go.

RBH · 12-07-2005, 06:40 PM

Do we have a problem reading plain English? BC&H!

RBH
E/C Moderator

Mountain Man · 12-07-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBH

Do we have a problem reading plain English? BC&H!

RBH
E/C Moderator

Nope, no problem at all. I answered before I read your posting.

Oolon Colluphid · 12-08-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

There is a possible interpretation that the earth is flat. None that is demanded by the text.

How did Jesus get to see all the kingdoms from the top of a high hill then (Matthew 4:8)?

Again, it's BC&H material.

buckshot23 · 12-08-2005, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

How did Jesus get to see all the kingdoms from the top of a high hill then (Matthew 4:8)?

Again, it's BC&H material.

Two words

Not
Literal

Mountain Man · 12-08-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King of Men

Well, if I could just play devil's advocate for a moment - a sufficiently tall tree with sufficiently spread-out and drooping branches could actually be visible from the other side of a sphere.

Yes, but this tree would have to be at the center of the Earth in order to fit the kind of Earth the bible is talking about. The surface of a globe has no center.

Mountain Man · 12-08-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Two words

Not
Literal

Two words:
Bible
Inerrant

If you want the bible to be inerrant, then every word has to be taken literally. You do not get to pick certain parts and claim that they are true while claiming the rest is not to be taken literally. It can't work that way because everytime something you claim is inerrant, and then proven to be wrong, you change what you claim is inerrant and what isn't. That's not a very honest way to have a discussion.

patchy · 12-08-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckshot23

Two words

Not
Literal

Dang. I've got to get a bible like Buckshot's, so I can tell which parts to take literally, and which parts to take figuratively. Maybe he has asterisks in his, or little notes in the sideline margins, in red ink maybe, where God says, "Just kidding."

I would just selectively cherry-pick which ones to interpret literally and which ones to interpret figuratively based on how conveniently it would match up to the way I want to live my life, but that seems very intellectually dishonest.

[Homer Simpson voice] Wait a second...[/Homer Simpson voice]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-07-2005, 06:26 PM	#2
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Folks, I repeat, this is not BC&H. They're already mad at me over there for splitting and moving one thread to them. Let's don't do another, please. You want to argue interpretations of the bible, do it there, please, not here. RBH E/C Moderator

12-07-2005, 06:40 PM	#4
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Do we have a problem reading plain English? BC&H! RBH E/C Moderator

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.