SEF

No, it isn't. It is pretty similar though. Rather like there being differences between ancient and modern Greek. I have books on both biblical and modern Hebrew. Things like the word for a fish are just the same in each. The main difference is a lack of vowel marks in the early texts.

lpetrich

Magus55, you had claimed some expertise in the Hebrew language; I was wondering about how far it goes.

And modern English is not the same as King James English, either.

Ebonmuse

Unless you're suggesting that the ancient Hebrews had footballs, I view this as a transparent attempt to evade the point.

MachineGod

Who says a scholar can’t be an ignoramus?

That’s interesting. But it still doesn’t make any sense. Where would the “four corners� be? Or are we just picking and choosing? Oh wait! I get it…a square circle! LOL

Sounds like atheist try to take it just as literal as anyone one else. What does that say about them when you apply that logic?

Desperately trying to pretend…no. Some people no days are just so caught up in their own prejudices, beliefs, habits/customs, and state of ignorance that they disregard it as a silly myth because they take it too literally.

There are plenty of things worthwhile to learn from in it. And no, it does not say murder and rape are OK for the right people. It specifically says the opposite. That’s just the atheist ignorance. As for slavery, yeah, the same way we have employee/employer relationships. It even says that you should only keep that slave (employee) for 6 years and them set them free. People in history usually mistreated their slaves (such as America) and that’s what you envision when you think of slave. That’s not right.

Oh yeah, and it seems a bit strange to call a flat earth common knowledge at the time when you said just a few posts ago, “their neighbors who had known for centuries that the Earth was approximately a sphere.�

Then what are you arguing it for? Because your bias description of it being a “get-out clause�? Well that’s typical.

I have thought about what that meant at the time, but I still don’t see how you get it’s an example of, “they thought the earth was flat.�

Funny, I see more atheist type people looking for proofs of reality (or lack of) in it, than any believer of God. Those poor stupid apologist do it mainly because they think they have to defend the Bible. What do they think they have to apologize for?…the ignorance of others?

You can stop right there. See ya in the next fun filled debate.

Herakles

Of course languages may have MICRO-changed, but they are still the SAME language. The fact is, ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew are just DIALECTS within a certain KIND of language. In other words, they're both still Hebrew! In addition, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that one langauge can suddenly generate another. And even if they could, NO transitional languages between this so-called ancient and modern Hebrew have EVER been discovered. So until you can show me some actual PROOF, stop teaching your THEORY as a FACT.

SEF

If they are only pretending to be a scholar and not really studying then they might be but I actually said they were more likely to be right not that they couldn't be wrong. You show an inability to comprehend English or the dishonesty to feign noncomprehension which is unfortunately very common in certain types of people.

It's very easy to define 4 corners in a circle. Cartesian co-ordinates guarantee it - and the cross as a symbol and the idea of 4 corners of the Earth as a concept pre-dates the biblical people by a long way. It's just another common idea stolen from others. They weren't very original, just another bunch of plagiarists.

No - mostly how to be the worst sort of hypocrite etc. You don't seem to have been reading it very critically. That would be par for the course though.

Common to them not common to their betters. Do try to keep up. The biblical people were never the first and only people on the planet and they were a bunch of peasants in comparison with the various civilisations they had and hadn't met.

Adora

A real football is. (Stupid yankee "football"... who the hell plays football with padding?! Pussies.)

SEF

This football aside is mildly interesting on its own - a diversion even.

Anyhow, while just about all cultures I've ever come across have ball games of some sort (the ball nearly always being round!) I'm not convinced that all invented some sort of football. Generally speaking the ball needs to be bigger for that than simple clay marbles and so on. In particular, traditional materials such as pig's bladder might have been unpalatable to the various semitic tribes and thus prevent such games from arising. The only bible ball reference I have is that Isaiah 22:18 one - which is clearly of the throwing ball kind.

So here's a tricky one. When did the first animal/plant material already in ball form or capable of being made into a ball first evolve? When did the first creature capable of properly utilising such a ball arise? Rodents, eg squirrels, bowl along nuts and lemons and dinosaurs may well have played with eggs (mostly other "people's" I expect). Basically all that is necessary are some functional limbs, eg tetrapods had some to spare, and the in-built play behaviour (which is harder to evidence for fossils than living creatures). Beetles roll dung balls but I doubt this could be fairly described as "playing" with the ball.

Ebonmuse

Just as an aside: If the ancient Hebrews had no word for "sphere", then doesn't that mean they must have conceived of the Earth as flat?

Coragyps

Dung beetles?

But apparently they did : "ball" or presumably "sphere" was "dwr," according to my internet-discussion-board-only education on the subject. I've been in discussions with literalists who claim that the Hebrew word for "circle" used in Isa 40:22 can also be translated "sphere", and even give references to Bible dictionaries that say so. Of course, the dictionaries they refer to were all written in the last couple of centuries, when the Earth-as-sphere paradigm was already pretty well accepted.....