Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 03-06-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: But there should be at least some transitions from different orders, families, and genera, but there are none.

jtb: There are PLENTY. Fish/amphibian transitionals, reptile/mammal transitionals (therapsids), reptile/bird transitionals like Archaeopteryx...

You are merely repeating a creationist lie.

No, see my E/C thread.

Quote:

Ed: Actually fundamentalists RARELY IF EVER say that parts of the bible are metaphorical. The biblical scholars that say these phrases are probably metaphorical are not fundamentalists.

jtb: By this argument, all fundametalists are young-Earthers (and flat-Earthers too).

Ed: They ARE all young earthers. I know of none that are flat earthers however.

jtb: Many are also geocentrists. But they SHOULD all be geocentrists, and flat-Earthers. They're not: they claim to be Biblical inerrantists, but they are hypocrites if they reject parts of the Bible that they don't like.

I have known many fundamentalists, probably many more than you, and have never met one that was a geocentrist. No, they should not be geocentrists, nowhere in the bible does it teach geocentrism or flat earthism (as I demonstrated).

Quote:

Ed: This comes from Biblical scholar and astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

jtb: Hugh Ross is an old-Earth creationist who has also applied Biblical hermeneutics to dismiss Noah's Flood as a global event (he claims it was only a local flood in part of the Middle East).

jtb: But it's quite amusing that you think I would respect Hugh Ross. This is true because Ross says so? Oh dear.

Ed: He has studied hebrew, so he is more qualified than you or I. Or are you going revert to the no true biblical scholar fallacy?

jtb: Genesis clearly refers to "evenings and mornings" between the creation days. Only an apologist would try to find an obscure "metaphorical" interpretation of what the author so clearly meant. Ross is extremely biased.

The same thing could be said about you, in fact even more so given your irrational ad hominems. I have never seen Dr. Ross engage in such behavior.

Quote:

jtb: But perhaps you will explain why YOU reject his interpretation of the Flood? He's more qualified than YOU, right?

Because the words used in Genesis regarding the flood seem to only point to a universal flood. But I could be wrong. If ever any new biblical studies point to a local flood maybe I will change my position. But as of now, I have yet to be convinced.

Quote:

jtb: It is a well-known historical FACT that the Hebrews thought the arth was flat (either a rectangle or a disk) and immobile, supported on pillars, and covered by a solid dome, the Firmament, which the stars were attached to.

Ed: Just because most of the ancient hebrews may have believed that the earth was flat, does not mean that the bible teaches it.

jtb: The Bible doesn't specifically state that the Earth is flat, but that's because this "obvious fact" would have been known and accepted by everyone: there was no rival theory that the Earth was round.

Ed: No, its because that is not the bible's purpose. Actually there is some evidence that at least some ancient hebrews later on thought it was round, read the book of Isaiah.

Quote:

jtb: But I have given you MANY verses that refer to this worldview.

No, I demonstrated that NONE of the verses you quoted teach a flat earth, see earlier post.

Quote:

jtb: Genesis 1:6-8 describes the creation of the Firmament.

Ed: No, firmament means "expanse" in hebrew (see Strongs) not anything solid. Also nothing here about the earth being flat.

jtb: The Firmament is a barrier: it separates "the waters above from the waters below". The Hebrews thought it was a solid dome.

Some hebrews may have thought that, but the bible does not teach it, see Strongs quote above.

Quote:

jtb: In Genesis 8:2, God closes windows in the Firmament to stop the waters above from falling to Earth.[/i]

Ed: Actually, it says windows of heaven, not firmament. The term translated "windows" just means openings. Since the ancient hebrews didnt understand cloud and rain formation they just assumed that the water came from God in heaven thru openings in heaven, God's residence. And again, nothing about a flat earth.

jtb: You have contradicted yourself. You have just admitted that the Bible teaches that rain falls through holes in the sky.

This is what the Hebrews believed, but it is wrong. Yet it's in the Bible. So the Bible teaches a false model of the world, in which a solid barrier separates the waters above from the waters below. This is the function of the Firmament, as the Bible clearly states. So the "windows of Heaven" must be in the Firmament.

Actually this could just be a metaphor, like "it began to rain like cats and dogs." But also, Moses was not a modern meteorologist, sometimes God just let the scriptures reflect the knowledge of the time in which it was written in areas that are not considered important. But most likely it was just metaphor for a heavy rain. But he was definitely not teaching a solid barrier between heaven and earth, because firmament means expanse.

Ed · 03-06-2003, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed:
My understanding is not unique, many scholars would agree with me, yours is however. I have never heard of your absurd interpretation even from the liberals!

ng: This is what the Bible says.

[31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

Ok, Ed, you claim that verse 31 says that the pharisees are plotting to kill Jesus just as their fathers did.

I say that verse 31 says that they are accusing themselves just for being children of thos who killed the prophets.

Now you claim that all or most scholars are on your side. Go ahead Ed, quote any scholar who is not a fundamentalist like yourself who agrees with you.

Dr. F. F. Bruce in the International Bible Commentary on page 1145. He belonged to the Church of England which is obviously not fundamentalist. Actually I am not a fundamentalist according to the most common definition. I am an OEC and I do not believe the whole bible should be interpreted literally. I consider myself an evangelical.

Quote:

NOGO:
This verse says that by admitting to be sons of those who murdered the prophets, they are testifying against themselves.

Ed:
Exactly, because they were planning to kill Jesus and persecute his disciples, who were God's new testament prophets.

ng: Ed, there is no correlation between "Exactly" and the rest of the sentence.

Exactly means what I stated, that is
"admitting to be sons of those who murdered the prophets, they are testifying against themselves. "

Now compare this to what you stated.

"because they were planning to kill Jesus and persecute his disciples, who were God's new testament prophets. "

There is absolutely no relation between these two statements.

Jesus must have trouble expressing himself.
He means "you are just like your fathers because you are planning to kill me"

and he actually says "you are saying that you are the son of those who killed the prophets, therefore you are testifying against yourselves. Fill up in the guilt of your fathers"

No wonder I don't believe. I have to learn to twist everything that is said just like you do, Ed. Then I will believe.

Ever hear of the principle "like father like son"? This generally accurate principle is what Jesus was referring to because he knew what was on their minds, ie the persecution of him and his followers.

Quote:

nogo:
See, Ed, you can never just read what the Bible says because you are ashamed of it. You cannot justify it so you need to invent some other story in order to patch it up. Did it ever occur to you that the so called "word of God" should be clear on its own and in no needs of your patches. Does God have problems communicating that He needs your help?

Ed:
I think that passage is pretty clear, but there are some passages that require expertise in greek and hebrew and knowledge of ancient history. But the requirements for salvation are obvious to even the uneducated.

ng: I agree that the passage is pretty clear. No amount of greek and hebrew nor ancient history will change what the text says into what you want it to say. But I am willing to read non-fundie scholars who agree with your interpretation. I eagerly await your quotes and references.

See above.

Quote:

nogo:
The Pharisees had absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' death.

According to your faith Jesus' death was planned by God ages before it happened. The people involved were just being used to achieve God's plan. They were framed.

Ed:

No, although it was part of God's plan, they chose to act by their own free will.

ng: Nonsense, if that is true then it would have been possible that Jesus came to earth to save mankind but nobody was willing to kill him. He would have died an old man and the whole project would have been scrapped. We need to thank these people for what they did. They were part of our salvation.

No, since God sees the future like we see the present (he is "outside time"), he knew that they would freely choose to kill him.

Ed · 03-06-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed:
Actually verses 13, 14 and 15 point to a resurrection. He says that after his "change comes, "You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands." God will call to him in the grave and he will answer him. This plainly at least implies resurrection. But apparently in that resurrection state he will not know what is going on back on earth. Verse 13 states that he will be hidden sheol until God remembers him, apparently at the time of resurrection. So I think both of these passages though not explicit plainly imply resurrection.

ng: Verses 13,14 and 15 do not point to any resurrection.
At least not to anybody that can read. But to one who twists any plain and clear text into anything he wants I guess that this should not present any difficulty.

Verse 7 to 12 says quite clearly what Job thinks. There is hope for a tree but none for man.

Verse 13 is a wish. A wish to be remembered. Note the word "would". Yes Job wishes for life after death.

Verse 14,15 and 16 read as follows

14 "If a man dies, will he live again?
All the days of my struggle I will wait
Until my change comes.
15 "You will call, and I will answer You;
You will long for the work of Your hands.
16 "For now You number my steps,
You do not observe my sin.

Verse 15 refers to "all the days of my struggle ..."
God will call and Job will answer. This is not after death as you would have it.

No, even you stated that "my change" refers to his death. So when God calls him, he is dead. And since he answers then he must be alive while he is yet dead, ie resurrection.

Quote:

ng: The second part of 15 is the key to understanding this.
It says "You will long for the work of Your hands"

What work of God's hands are we talking about here?
If you answer this question correctly then you will know that the "God will call and Job will answer" is during his lifetime.

The work of His hands refers to Job. He will long for him to live again so He will call to him thereby raising him from the dead.

Quote:

ng: Verse 16, 17 etc, tells us what the second part of verse 15 is saying.

For now you number my days ...
you do not see my sin
BUT
just like the mountains crumbles away
... So You destroy man's hope.

20 "You forever overpower him and he departs;
You change his appearance and send him away.
21 "His sons achieve honor, but he does not know it;
Or they become insignificant, but he does not perceive it.
22 "But his body pains him,
And he mourns only for himself."

This is the work of God's hands in verse 15 ... Job's death ... Verses 21 and 22 also answers the question in verse 14.

No, see above. Why would God long for Job's death?

Jeremy Pallant · 03-06-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I have known many fundamentalists, probably many more than you, and have never met one that was a geocentrist. No, they should not be geocentrists, nowhere in the bible does it teach geocentrism or flat earthism (as I demonstrated).

Actually, Ed, the Geocentrists disagree with you. If you ask Dr Gerardus Bouw, an Astronomer and their nominal leader, he would tell you that the Bible does teach geocentrism. Now, you seem to rather like appeals to authority, so how does an astronomer who claims that the Bible teaches geocentrism grab you?

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2003, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Ed: But there should be at least some transitions from different orders, families, and genera, but there are none.

jtb: There are PLENTY. Fish/amphibian transitionals, reptile/mammal transitionals (therapsids), reptile/bird transitionals like Archaeopteryx...

You are merely repeating a creationist lie.

No, see my E/C thread.

I just did. You are lying. I challenged you to produce a specific example and you failed to do so.

Quote:

I have known many fundamentalists, probably many more than you, and have never met one that was a geocentrist. No, they should not be geocentrists, nowhere in the bible does it teach geocentrism or flat earthism (as I demonstrated).

The Bible DOES teach geocentrism, and contains many references to the Hebrew cosmology: that of a flat Earth covered by a dome to which the stars are attached. You did not "demonstrate" anything to the contrary: you are hallucinating again.

Quote:

jtb: Genesis clearly refers to "evenings and mornings" between the creation days. Only an apologist would try to find an obscure "metaphorical" interpretation of what the author so clearly meant. Ross is extremely biased.

The same thing could be said about you, in fact even more so given your irrational ad hominems. I have never seen Dr. Ross engage in such behavior.

Which "irrational ad hominems" are those? I have called you a liar, but that is simply a statement of fact. Perhaps Ross hasn't debated liars?

Quote:

jtb: But perhaps you will explain why YOU reject his interpretation of the Flood? He's more qualified than YOU, right?

Because the words used in Genesis regarding the flood seem to only point to a universal flood. But I could be wrong. If ever any new biblical studies point to a local flood maybe I will change my position. But as of now, I have yet to be convinced.

Why "new" Biblical studies? There are ALREADY Biblical studies which point to a local flood, such as that of Hugh Ross.

But thank you for admitting that only BIBLICAL studies will change your mind: that SCIENCE means nothing to you.

Quote:

jtb: The Bible doesn't specifically state that the Earth is flat, but that's because this "obvious fact" would have been known and accepted by everyone: there was no rival theory that the Earth was round.

Ed: No, its because that is not the bible's purpose. Actually there is some evidence that at least some ancient hebrews later on thought it was round, read the book of Isaiah.

Nowhere in the Book of Isaiah is there any indication that the Earth is spherical. There is only a reference to a "circle": from the context, this is either a flat disk or the dome covering it.

But I've already pointed this out to you.

Quote:

jtb: But I have given you MANY verses that refer to this worldview.

No, I demonstrated that NONE of the verses you quoted teach a flat earth, see earlier post.

No, this is a hallucination. No such post exists.

Quote:

jtb: Genesis 1:6-8 describes the creation of the Firmament.

Ed: No, firmament means "expanse" in hebrew (see Strongs) not anything solid. Also nothing here about the earth being flat.

jtb: The Firmament is a barrier: it separates "the waters above from the waters below". The Hebrews thought it was a solid dome.

Some hebrews may have thought that, but the bible does not teach it, see Strongs quote above.

An "expanse" of solid matter, a vast sheet which separates "the waters above from the waters below", and to which the stars are attached.

Quote:

jtb: You have contradicted yourself. You have just admitted that the Bible teaches that rain falls through holes in the sky.

This is what the Hebrews believed, but it is wrong. Yet it's in the Bible. So the Bible teaches a false model of the world, in which a solid barrier separates the waters above from the waters below. This is the function of the Firmament, as the Bible clearly states. So the "windows of Heaven" must be in the Firmament.

Actually this could just be a metaphor, like "it began to rain like cats and dogs." But also, Moses was not a modern meteorologist, sometimes God just let the scriptures reflect the knowledge of the time in which it was written in areas that are not considered important. But most likely it was just metaphor for a heavy rain. But he was definitely not teaching a solid barrier between heaven and earth, because firmament means expanse.

Yes, this IS what the Bible specifically teaches. There is absolutely no indication that this is a "metaphor". That's just your own refusal to believe the Bible.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2003, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen
I think there's a death penalty for rape (not that it helps Ed's case) if a woman (not sure if she's betrothed, married or not) does not cry out in a city where many people can hear her, she gets put to death.

Nothing much happens to the rapist, though. I guess god looks after his own.

Not quite. The rape of a married or betrothed woman was punishable by death (for the rapist AND frequently the victim too), because it counts as adultery. This doesn't apply to unbetrothed virgins: in these cases, the rapist has to pay the bride-price to the victim's father and marry the victim, but he'd have to do that anyway, even if he seduced her and had sex with her consent. There was no punishment for the actual rape.

Furthermore, the rape of a betrothed handmaiden is punishable only by the scourging of the VICTIM, and payment of a sacrificial ram by the rapist:

Quote:

Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

The fact that this was rape is confirmed by the reason the betrothed handmaid wasn't put to death for adultery: "because she was not free". She could not refuse: she did not consent.

Why wasn't the rapist put to death? Presumably because the adulterous rape of a handmaid isn't as bad as "real" adultery: submitting to rape is one of the functions of a handmaid (though not usually a betrothed one). There are numerous examples of handmaids being offered by their owners for sexual purposes.

Ed · 03-07-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed:
No, he would allow them to be raped, he does not cause it directly. .

ng: You really have trouble reading, Ed.
You read
"he would allow them to be raped, he does not cause it directly"

But the Bible says ...

2 Sam 12
11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"

I will raise up evil against you ...
Note it is called evil not justice or anything like that, but EVIL.

I will even TAKE your wives before your eyes and GIVE them to your companions.

So, Ed, how can you say that God ALLOWS it to happen when it says
I will raise evil
I will take your wives
I will give them to your companions

This does not sound like ALLOWING it to happen. Once again, Ed, you read what you want where you want it. What the Bible actually says is irrelevant to you.

No, see my post to Jack above.

Quote:

Ed:
But nevertheless, any time you doing something wrong there is always a chance that your family could be impacted by the consequences.

ng: Nonsense. As I told you before this is not an example of the consequences of one's actions.

If I drive too fast and I get into an accident and my children are killed then that is a consequence of my action. There is a direct relationship between the action and the consequence. No one will ever say that my children were punished because I was driving too fast.

No, but one could say that YOU were punished for driving too fast by your children's deaths.

Quote:

ng: David killed a man and seduced his wife. This is not related in anyway to his wives being seduced except behaps in the twisted mind of some priest. This was meant as a punishment to David.

As such the person doing the punishment choses which punishment to give. In this case the punishment was just envisioned as a possible punishment. This clealy shows that there is no relationship between the David's crime and his wives being raped.

But in this particular case the Supreme Judge of the Universe has told us that there is a relationship.

Quote:

Ed:
And also we don't know all the dynamics of his marriages to these women, some of these women may have been doing some very bad things that are not recorded in the scriptures. God may have been withholding judgement on them just because they were married to David, but now they are going to receive their accounting. This is a rational assumption given the overall biblical context

ng: Irrelevant!
Everybody should be punished for his or her own sin.
In this case it is David's sin that we are talking about and the raping of his wives is brought up not as a punishment for the wives but as a punishment for David.

But we know from other scriptures and experience that everything God does is just and he doesnt always tell us all the reasons he does things. Also we are all sinners and deserve death, Romans 3 and 6. So by not killing us immediately he is in fact being merciful to us.

Quote:

nogo
What about the wives? Women are just not that important! There is no such thing as a crime against a woman. A raped woman is a crime against her husband or her father but not against her.
Ed:
No, see Deut. 22 and my commentary about it to Jack on page 17.
ng: You do not have a case here, Ed. And since JTB has answered you already I will leave it.

You mean he THINKS he has answered it.

Quote:

nogo
Verse 13: Wow! That is all it takes. But what about the law? David has killed a man and seduced his wife both of which are crime which require him to be stoned to death. Is the law different for David than for everyone else?

Ed,
No, but sometimes God is gracious if the person truly repents. Only God has this perogative.

ng: But the law is the law. The law is not there just for God. Observing the law tells people that justice is made and is for everybody. God can forgive but it was not he who was hurt by the fact that David broke the law. Urriah was hurt, and the community must know that the law stands and justice is made. For that David must die because that is what God's law says.

God was also hurt, it is His Law that was broken. God's law is tempered by mercy. It is far more than just a bunch of do's and don'ts.

Quote:

nogo
Verse 14 David shall not die HOWEVER because of what DAVID DID ("by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme") the child shall die.

So the child was killed because of what David did.
David was not punished.
Instead his child was killed.

Ed:
No, David was punished by the death of the child. Death is not always punishment for the person experiencing it. The child may have had some horrible genetic defect that would have caused its life to be a life of terrible suffering so God just took him. Or he may have grown up to commit terrible crimes because of his unseemly origin, but instead God took him as child so he would not have gone to hell for his crimes as an adult. All of these are rational assumptions given the overall biblical context.

ng: You mean that God allowed the child to be born not as any person is born but as a tool to punish David. So this child is not a person in his own right. This idea has potential, Ed. Maybe many people are not real people but are simply there to amuse others.

No, he is a person, it is most atheists that think that babies are not persons. But his death is also a means to an end, David's punishment.

Quote:

Ed: The child may have had some horrible genetic defect that would have caused its life to be a life of terrible suffering so God just took him.

ng: So, Ed, you agree with abortion for deformed children.

If God does it, yes. If man, no. Only God is qualified to do such a thing.

Quote:

Ed: "Or he may have grown up to commit terrible crimes because of his unseemly origin, but instead God took him as child so he would not have gone to hell for his crimes as an adult. "

ng: You have such a twisted mind, Ed. If God would purge the world of evil people just as they are born through illness then there would be no evil. David would not have killed Urriah because David would have died as a child before he committed the crime.

No, God usually wants man to choose either good or evil, if he killed them at birth they would never have that choice.

Quote:

ng: But then the question is this ...
In the case of "deformed child" and "the future criminal" why did God wait till the child was born? He could have stopped the conception.

See above about the criminal. In the case of the deformed child not, sometimes he wants them to experience life, and sometimes he doesnt. Why some and not others? We dont always know, though sometimes we do in hindsight.

Quote:

Ed
No, the fathers are punished by the deaths of their children but death is not always a punishment, see above. Also, according to the scriptures noone is truly innocent.

ng: So the child is not truly innocent but David who committed two crimes is let off easy and you call that a just God.

Yes, but the fact that we don't fully understand everything he does is evidence that he is not manmade.

Ed · 03-08-2003, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

If you want to know more about Sheol read this

Ecc 9
2 It is the same for all. There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear.
3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.
4 For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.
7 Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works.
8 Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.
9 Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.

There is one fate that aways all. Everybody goes to Sheol where there is NO activity, NO planning, NO knowledge and No wisdom. Also note verse 5 which says that the dead know nothing.

This is what Job is talking about.

Since God's revelation is progressive in some areas, ie he reveals some of his truths over time and one of those truths was the afterlife, not all Hebrews knew that there was an afterlife in OT times and Solomon was probably one of those. However, as I demonstrated above there is evidence that Job believed that there was an afterlife.

Ed · 03-08-2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
[B]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.

Huh? You're kidding right? Poetic language rarely ever describes reality in precise observational language. For example, if I said that my girlfriend's eyes are like shimmering pools of crystal clear water reflecting the blue sky in a poem I wrote for her, that does not mean that I actually think that her eyes are made of water.

Quote:

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.

ng: 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.

Yes most people probably did at the time, but He may be referring to meteors. The word for stars in Greek and hebrew was also used for meteors. And meteors actually DO fall to the earth.

Quote:

[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

ng: 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.

No, apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic and the symbols are not any type of description of physical reality.

Ed · 03-08-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

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

wj: Yes he does, otherwise he would stop the rape.

No, sometimes he allows evil to occur in order to bring about a greater good.

Quote:

wj: 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.

Ed: No, this was dealt with in an earlier post.

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

wj: 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?

Huh? So you think most women commit adultery and engage in prostitution? That is a highly sexist and socially warped comment!

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.