Doctor X

Brighid:

The ones he agrees with.

The ones he disagrees with or have errors he can comprehend.

Has the Hubble Telescope found those chambers that store the waters for the flood yet?

--J.D.

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.

And anyway, lets assume the authors did believe the Earth was flat. Now, from all pictures that atheists like to post showing what the Earth would look like from a superficial reading of the Bible ( Mark9950), the Earth is a flat, round disc. Last I checked, a circular disk, even if flat, doesn't have corners either.

Reading the verses again, I see no problem with it at all. It reads to me just like If i opened up a modern novel that used that phrase. I think you are making too big a deal out of something so trivial. You have presented ZERO evidence that the Bible states the Earth is flat. There is not a single verse in the Bible that actually says "the earth is flat", you are just using your agenda of disproving the Bible and taking any verse that speaks metaphorically or figuratively, and giving your opinion that the Bible is wrong.



Where did you get 70 years from? The only book that is considered by scholars to be almost that old is Revelation. The Youngest being the letters of Paul, about 20 years after Jesus' death. I'm well aware that not all of the Gospels were written by the Apostles. That means nothing. They were still written under the direction of the Apostles since they were still alive when the Bible was written.


Brighid, let me ask you. Is there a particular reason you are trying to show the Bible authors thought the world was flat? What agenda do you have? Do you expect to deconvert me? Are you trying to prove something to me? I've been on this board a long time now and atheists have yet to change my views on an innerant Bible, so why are you making such a big deal out of it? You've already rejected God, you've already declared the Bible is fake. Now why do you continue to bring up points that have been brought up over and over, and are meaningless? What are you trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to?

Mageth

Where did you get 70 years from? The only book that is considered by scholars to be almost that old is Revelation.

Many if not most Biblical scholars think the earliest of the Gospels was written no earlier than 70 CE - about 40 years after the alleged events they describe.

They were still written under the direction of the Apostles since they were still alive when the Bible was written.

Sources/evidence for this assertion? I thought they were all getting martyred for their beliefs in the meantime - isn't that what you have claimed before, that they were all martyred for their beliefs?

Magus55

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

One reason that the Gospels had to have been written before 70 A.D were, Jesus prophecised the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which extra-biblical evidence proves happened in 70 A.D. If the Gospels were written later, the destruction of the temple would have been documented.

Mageth

I don't quite grok that convoluted logic. Care to explain?

Magus55

Did you not read the link?

Mageth

Yes, and I didn't grok the convoluted logic there, either.

Magus55

What kind of convoluted logic? If the leader you followed claimed to be God, then prophecised the destruction of a sacred temple ( a very important building of the time), don't you think you would write it down? Failure of the Apostles to write down the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, had it happened before they wrote the Gospels, would be like the media not bothering to cover the collapse of the world Trade centers on 9/11.

Mageth

The convoluted logic that says that, because the gospels don't record the destruction of the temple, that they were obviously written before the destruction of the temple.

For one thing, the gospels are alleged to be accounts of Jesus' life, and end at his crucifixion and/or ascention. You wouldn't expect the authors to include the destruction of the temple, some 40 years later, whenever they were written.

For another thing, it's just as, or more likely, evidence that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple, with the alleged "prophecy" of Jesus added to give him credibility.

demoninho

nevermind, can't delete myself.....