Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 09-19-2003, 03:28 PM

Since we are waving strawmen scholars about . . . most scholars date the texts after the fall because of the prophecy. It is a rather common thing for followers to claim that their figure predicted things after the fact.

The drive to date the texts prior to the fall of Jerusalem comes from the realization that the late date argues strongly, in and of itself, against the texts reflecting the views of followers who actually "were there."

--J.D.

Mageth · 09-19-2003, 03:30 PM

Also note that I don't think John records the temple "prophecy" at all, for what that's worth.

09-19-2003, 09:34 PM

But the temple was the construct of Judaism and why would Catholics rebuilt that in the Gospel of John?

If you take the four Gospels in this transition (from Judaism to Catholicism) it is easy to see why they would not rebuilt the temple. I mean, they went to the ends of the world to find heaven for their followers and so I don't think that it would be very smart to try and drag the old world of Judaism into heaven.

BTW Did Jonah not find heaven when he reached the end of his world?

beyelzu · 09-20-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
No, I did not say it has "ENDS"(like in book ends), but rather that the Earth is finite and therefore ends.

I think the others have done a fine job with regard to the wings the Earth has, etc.

So which parts of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical? Does one simply get to pick and chose? Do the ones that fit your belief system get to be literal, I mean if that is metaphorical why not the Ressurection, or anything else that is taken to be "literal"? It seems to me that Jesus wasn't literal either, but rather a fictional character used to put forth a human made message!

Is there a point in Genesis where God tells you that it is only a metaphorical story he is telling? Did I miss that?

Brighid

sorry, brighid but the earth does not have an end. take any direction and one can travel forever. I mention this because it is a common analogy for the expanding universe. much as an ant travels on the outside of the balloon that is being blown up and will never reach an end, the unierse is a four d balloon blown up through time.

anyway, I hope I wasnt too terribly confusing, but the earth has no ends in any directional sense.

beyelzu · 09-20-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos

BTW Did Jonah not find heaven when he reached the end of his world?

being an atheist, I am going to go with a no.

beyelzu · 09-20-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
How do you figure the remarks about the "4 corners" are very literal? The two mentions of it are in Isaiah, which is predominately a book of prophecy so there is bound to be metaphorical language there, and Revelation - one big apocolyptic vision. The context that the phrase was written it doesn't lend itself well to the idea of being written "very" literal. Did you live 2000 years ago? Do you know what how language and culture spoke and worked back then? Couldn't the phrase "4 corners" of the Earth been used metaphorically back then, just like it is today? I don't see how this is any evidence whatsoever that the Biblical authors actually believed the Earth was flat. In the context its written, it means a distant expanse of the Earth. Travelling to the far reaches of the Earth. All that means is far away from the place the person in the verse is at. The phrase worked the same way back then as it does now based on the context.

Maybe you dont understand the burden of proof, you have a positive claim concerning god. perhaps we have a positive claim that the authors of the bible believed in a flat earth. we have provided evidence of this belief. you have failed to respond in any meaningful way. I dont count your hand wringing and excuse making. if you believe the bible inerrant you need to make a proof for why this flat earth evidence doesnt count as an error in your bible. If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical. If you are going to make a claim that all the many references to flat earth, corners, seeing the whole world, chambers for the flood waters, and the dome of the heavens are figures of speech, than you need to provide evidence that writers of those times used these literary devices commonly. and finally, after that proof, you need to explain the heliocentric, church sanctioned veiw of the universe and why is it that in 40 ad people knew the earth wasnt flat but in 1300 ad people didnt.

I anxiosly await any evidence at all, perhaps the first you will have offered in this thread.

mark9950 · 09-20-2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical.

Magus explained it God is a methophor and metaphors as entities do not exist,simple as that.

Lucifer does not exist either,but lucifer is named after the luciferians not a entity with horns and a pitchfork living in a place called hell.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ht=luciferians

Magus55 · 09-20-2003, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
Maybe you dont understand the burden of proof, you have a positive claim concerning god. perhaps we have a positive claim that the authors of the bible believed in a flat earth. we have provided evidence of this belief. you have failed to respond in any meaningful way. I dont count your hand wringing and excuse making. if you believe the bible inerrant you need to make a proof for why this flat earth evidence doesnt count as an error in your bible. If you are going to insist that is metaphorical than I need to know your criteria for deciding which is literal and which is metaphorical. If you are going to make a claim that all the many references to flat earth, corners, seeing the whole world, chambers for the flood waters, and the dome of the heavens are figures of speech, than you need to provide evidence that writers of those times used these literary devices commonly. and finally, after that proof, you need to explain the heliocentric, church sanctioned veiw of the universe and why is it that in 40 ad people knew the earth wasnt flat but in 1300 ad people didnt.

I anxiosly await any evidence at all, perhaps the first you will have offered in this thread.

Um excuse me, you presented evidence for a flat Earth? Pulling a verse randomly out of the Bible and saying, THIS MEANS FLAT EARTH, HAHA! isn't evidence. Until you can show me a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat, you have no evidence and I have nothing to prove.

09-20-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
being an atheist, I am going to go with a no.

So did Jonah, and he was also 'running' away from God.

beyelzu · 09-21-2003, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Um excuse me, you presented evidence for a flat Earth? Pulling a verse randomly out of the Bible and saying, THIS MEANS FLAT EARTH, HAHA! isn't evidence. Until you can show me a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat, you have no evidence and I have nothing to prove.

I am guessing that there is some sort of reading comprehension issue here.

If I tell you that Jesus took the elevator from the lobby to the third floor. what conclusions can you draw?

well, in your case I am guessing none.

But I could safely conclude that Jesus was inside a buiilding, got inside an elevator, and the elevator went up to the third floor.

see similar for something to have four corners, its gots to be flat. see how this works, now why dont you give it a try?

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

09-19-2003, 03:28 PM	#71
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Since we are waving strawmen scholars about . . . most scholars date the texts after the fall because of the prophecy. It is a rather common thing for followers to claim that their figure predicted things after the fact. The drive to date the texts prior to the fall of Jerusalem comes from the realization that the late date argues strongly, in and of itself, against the texts reflecting the views of followers who actually "were there." --J.D.

09-19-2003, 03:30 PM	#72
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Also note that I don't think John records the temple "prophecy" at all, for what that's worth.

09-19-2003, 09:34 PM	#73
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	But the temple was the construct of Judaism and why would Catholics rebuilt that in the Gospel of John? If you take the four Gospels in this transition (from Judaism to Catholicism) it is easy to see why they would not rebuilt the temple. I mean, they went to the ends of the world to find heaven for their followers and so I don't think that it would be very smart to try and drag the old world of Judaism into heaven. BTW Did Jonah not find heaven when he reached the end of his world?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.