Warcraft3

Hello emotional...

Yeah, Im not so sure your link actually proves what it claims to....I mean many of the verses are from the Psalms (for starters)...and I would take verses from that section of the Bible with a poetical perspective in mind....

I have read the whole "flat earth" vs "spherical earth" thing, and I am unconvinced that the Bible explicatley advocates or describes either view....


Russ

Oolon Colluphid

Heh. You'll be telling us next that the bible doesn't reckon bats are birds, insects have four legs and that pi equals three...

Oolon

emotional

It's not conclusive. I've seen a refutation of this article at the Answering Islam website.

Schadewald says the Bible nowhere categorically states that the earth is flat. It can only be guessed from a few passages, such as he brings in his article, and be assumed because that's what the neighbours of the ancient Hebrews believed. The Greeks were the first to accept the spherical earth, and it was their view, not the flat-earth one, that dominated Medieval Europe. The medieval Christians were geocentrists but not flat-earthers.

Much clearer than a flat earth is the fact that the Bible mentions a firmament, a solid roof above our heads, in which holes are opened to let the rain come down. Creationists dream up so many ridiculous and far-fetched models of where the flood waters came from, such as a vapour canopy or a hydroplate, where the Bible has such an elegant solution: the reservoire of water above the firmament. Of course, they can't accept that plain description, because we have already sent rockets to space without their being smashed on the firmament.

Warcraft3

LOL I really hope those arent your best arguments against the Bible..... :boohoo: cause they are rather weak and just a tad bit silly.....


Russ

Warcraft3

There are other places where it is refuted as well.....it is far from conclusive...



Solid roof? Holes in it? Vapour canopy? All things that people read into the text.....just like the claim that the phrase "hangeth the earth upon nothing" is a description of the earth in spaceor the claim that "the circle of the earth" is a reference to the spherical shape or the claim that "stretcheth out the heavens" refers to the expansion of space........all things that people read into the text


Russ

emotional

I realise that this is a BC&A or GRD topic, but it seems, if people are able to read such differing views into the text, then God was doing a less than perfect job of giving guidance in that book.

I still don't understand, pertaining to the "Theology et Evolution" thread, why Genesis should be read any other way than literally, except for the challenge of harmonising it with science. The text seems to speak so factually!

Warcraft3

Oh yeah...I never did get back to that thread did I? Ill go back there and continue my defense of a non-YEC view of the text.

Sorry....i forgot about that thread..but Ill get to it this weekend.



Russ

SaulOhio

There is one clear way to tell the real flat-earthers from the parodies. The parodies sound literate, as if they graduated from at least high school. They tend to have good grammar and syntax. The real flat-earthers are barely literate. They sound either like poorly educated children or schizophrenics. Here is an article containing a sample of their writings: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

caravelair

wow! that certainly was something.

djmullen

This is from Talk Reason :

Thus to date no Intelligent Designer has substantively criticized any of their Young Earth creationist fellow travelers on any scientific issue whatsoever, no matter how egregiously ill-informed they may be.[2] This runs even to the instances where the ID movement has relied on the writings of geocentrists (people who don't buy into that radical new idea that the earth revolves around the sun). Notable examples here run from British geocentrist Malcolm Bowden (who managed to persuade Phillip Johnson "to be suspicious of both the Java Man and Pekin [sic] Man fossil finds") to Tom Willis, author of the infamous 1999 creationist revisions to the Kansas science standards.[3]