NOGO

jtb: Isaiah 40:22 God sits above the "circle" of the Earth (either a disk, or the dome over the Earth), and the heavens are spread out like a tent over it.

Ed: This is either a reference to the horizon or it could be a vision that Isaiah had that showed God and the earth in silhouette, thereby making the round earth appear to be a circle. But again this is written in poetic language, not literal prose. Therefore no teaching of flat earth here.


The big problem is that poetic language like ordinary language reflect the basic beliefs of poets and people.

Every single one of these poetic passages in the bible which speaks of the cosmos reflect the same concepts found in the book of Enoch (2nd century BCE) which descibes a flat, disc-shaped earth with a dome (heaven) over it. The sun, stars and moon enter and exit the dome throught windows.

Isaiah 40:22 tells us that the heavens are like a tent. A dome is like a tent.



Daniel 4:10-11, 20 Daniel imagines a tree so tall that it can be seen from anywhere on Earth. Not possible on a globe.

Daniel 8:10 A giant goat that can reach the stars, cast them down to Earth and stamp on them.

Ed:
These were dreams and visions, not reality. Visions are just symbols of realities.



Dreams also reflect the beliefs of people who have them. In this passage Daniel makes an analogy between the tree and Nen's empire. He is trying to tell us that the empire is so great that it can be felt throughtout the earth.

What is interesting here is the analogy that he uses to get the message across. A tree ... so tall that it touches the heavens.
In other words it touches the dome which is like a tent in Isaiah.
And this tree can be seen from all over the earth.
That is strictly impossible if the earth is a ball.
So the analogy fails for a spherical earth but it is quite ok for a flat earth.



Matthew 24:29 The stars will fall to Earth from Heaven.

Mark 13:24-25 The stars will fall.

Ed:
More phenomenological language, see above.


Not so. People really believed that the stars were little lights on the dome of heaven. In Genesis God placed the sun, moon and stars in the firmament which God calls heaven.


[b]
Revelation 6:13 The stars will fall.

Revelation 6:14 "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together": God rolls up the Firmament.

Revelation 7:1 Four corners.

Revelation 12 One-third of all the stars fall to Earth.

Ed:
Revelation is apocalyptic
[b]

And so it is.
But it reflects the same concepts about the cosmos found in the rest of the Bible. Heaven departs as a scroll ... therefore it is a surface just like it is described in Genesis and in Ezekiel and of course in the book of Enoch.

NOGO

This is part of the book of Enoch written in Hebrew around the second century BCE. In this book you will also find the expression "son of man" which is typical of the period and can be found in the gospels as well.

The book of Enoch is referenced in the Bible.

The inner quote is found in 1 Enoch 1:9
By attributing prophecy to Enoch, Jude confers inspired status upon the book.


I stop here but the book continues and describes fully how the days grow longer and then shorter etc. he then goes on to describe the moon and stars.

Note in verse 4 and 5
"his circumference is like the [5] circumference of the heaven"

In other words the path of the sun has an arc whose curve is the same as the arc of the heaven. The sun follows the curvature of the dome of heaven.

Ed

Huh? She is not a victim if she engages in sex consensually, ie the first case.

Quote:

jtb: How can this POSSIBLY apply to an adult single woman? If she DID consent, then WHO is being wronged?

They are both being wronged by themselves, because they have violated God's ideal of sex only within marriage.

Quote:

jtb: Only a MAN can be wronged by rape, according to Biblical law!

No, see above.

Quote:

jtb: You have been given MANY examples of this simple FACT of Israelite law. You have even been given examples of where GOD HIMSELF arranges the rape of INNOCENT WOMEN to punish their HUSBANDS. It is utterly perverse and futile for you to continue to defy the authority of your own Bible and your own God on this issue!

No, just because he allows evil men to sometimes have the free will to act on their inclinations does not mean he condones rape.

Quote:

jtb: But the rape of captured women wasn't classed as "mistreatment", and you have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence that it was. Ed: You have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that it wasn't. The common sense understanding of the text is that mistreatment plainly covers rape. jtb: You are lying AGAIN, Ed. The "common sense understanding of the text" is that HUMBLED means RAPED, and you KNOW that. The Bible says that the woman has ALREADY BEEN raped (humbled), and that IS the "common sense" understanding of the text. She was forcibly taken as a wife! OF COURSE sex was involved! OF COURSE she did not consent! OF COURSE this was rape! Common sense says so! The Bible says so!

No, I disagree. As I demonstrated earlier humbled does not always mean rape and rape is plainly mistreatment. And the ad hominem attack means you cannot support your case with rational argument.

Quote:

jtb: We're talking about women compelled to marry the murderers of their families. This is MUCH, MUCH MORE HORRIBLE than being RAPED by a total stranger. Ed: Actually they are not murderers, killing during a war is not equivalent to murder. jtb: This is NOT just "killing during a war". This is the near-total slaughter of women and little children, AFTER a war. This is GENOCIDE. It is WORSE THAN BEING RAPED.

No, this was dealt with in an earlier post.

Quote:

jtb: Oh, and there may have been some "temple prostitution" in the Bacchus cult, but they were volunteers, not conscripts. The same probably applies to Ishtar. Ed: Yeah right, I am sure they were "volunteers". jtb: Evidence that they were NOT? Remember these were polytheistic religions. There was no obligation to specifically worship Bacchus. He was the god of wine and orgies: the god of PLEASURE, not slavery.

The nature of women. Women generally do not want multiple sexual partners, they generally desire one man to have as a husband and the father of their children.

winstonjen

Oh, that's right, god is wronged, even though god was not raped. But a woman who WAS raped gets no protection and no justice.


Yes he does, otherwise he would stop the rape.



Says you. And the god who made that silly law. If all/most women only wanted a single partner, would they commit adultery? And would they be involved with prostitution?

Jack the Bodiless

You have not provided any evidence, except "these genealogies don't match, therefore I will assume that the Hebrews skipped genealogies, because otherwise the Bible would be wrong". And William Henry Green has no more evidence either.

There are Biblical scholars right here, on the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum. Why not ask THEM about Hebrew genealogies?
You have quoted one fundie who allegedly agrees with you. That is not "scholarly evidence".
Your "direct lineage" was ALREADY established. He was ALREADY a part of that lineage!

By exactly the same argument, the "direct lineage" was established from HIS father to you, when HE was born. So how can he "establish" a direct lineage that already exists?
The ancient Hebrews did NOT use it. It is a fiction invented by apologists who wanted to move the date of the Flood. As there was no global Flood anyhow, this is both unnecesary and futile.
Firstly, single adult women would have been fairly common. According to the Bible, the Hebrews fought many wars, and men die in wars. This produces a male/female imbalance: too many women, not enough men for all.

And yet there are NO laws to protect them from rape.

Secondly, Deuteronomy 22 plainly refers to ADULTERY. Rape is regarded as a form of adultery (a crime normally punishable by death), but with a possible escape clause for the woman. She must prove that nobody would have heard her cries for help. If others could have heard her cries, but did not (maybe she was knocked unconscious, or gagged, or her rapist held a knife to her throat), then she will be put to death just in case she had been unfaithful to her husband.
The Hebrews did not regard non-adulterous fornication as a crime punishable by death.
And yet he DOES condone rape. This FACT is obvious from reading the Bible. You have just been given an example of God INSTIGATING rape.

So you're lying again.
It is perfectly obvious from the CONTEXT that this is rape. "Humbled" obviously DOES mean rape HERE.

To believe otherwise, you must lie to yourself: just as you have lied repeatedly about what the Bible plainly states on MANY issues. This is not an ad hominem attack. It is directly relevant to the topic, and supported by many clear examples.
No, it was not. You are hallucinating (or lying) again.
Sex is a pleasurable activity, not simply a means of procreation. You assume that no woman has ever voluntarily taken part in an orgy? No woman has ever committed adultery? No woman has ever voluntarily indulged in casual sex of any sort?

This is your case for asserting that "temple prostitution" is slavery?

You have led a sheltered life, Ed.

Aerik Von

Honestly, atheism provides no hope for the future, and henceforth is no longer good for the plebes to indulge in.

NOGO

So anything that offers a hope, however absurd, you will swallow.

Look at my post on Job.

Here is a man who believes in God but not in afterlife.
Yes, he sounds rather desperate but he believes in God.
But Job had a rather miserable life. This is however not the norm.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, if you still insist that rape is "plainly mistreatment" according to the Bible, then compare the following two verses:
One is plainly referring to consensual sex: the other is plainly referring to rape. And yet the result is pretty much the same: the father is paid off, and the man usually gets the woman. Remarkably, the father can refuse to give up his daughter to a seducer, but not to a rapist!

So fornication is no big deal, and rape is no big deal. They are essentially the same thing. As long as there's no ADULTERY involved, rape is acceptable and normal.

Neither fornication nor rape is punishable by death. Only ADULTERY is punishable by death.

NOGO

Ed,

You keep saying ... "I demonstrated this and I demonstrated that".

Ignoring evidence and fabricating apologetic red herrings does not in any way constitute "demonstration".

You have the delusion or at least you pretend that you are actually debating with us.

Aerik Von

Any God that would treat me like Job would get no vote of mine. Maybe Job was an attention whore of some sort, but I want something for my loyalty, even if it's a simple pat on the shoulder of support.

God ALLOWED "Mr. Accuser" to do this to him, instead of taking mercy - JUST TO PROVE A BET.

Sounds like the gang lords that run certain parts of Flushing. They make a bet and kill a guys family just to show that they will remain in terror of them and say nothing.

AND IT WORKS! FUNNY EH!