Jeremy Pallant

Well, John, that is a depiction of how Charles K. Johnson's (now deceased) International Flat Earth Society (a Christian organization) interpreted those same verses.

Again, you show yourself to be no different from an Islamic apologist. Please provide an example where those verses were used to predict an expanding universe.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jeremy Pallant ]</p>

lpetrich

My guess is that "cockatrice" in Isaiah is some mistranslation -- where in the Bible is a "cockatrice" described in any detail?

An example of such detail would be the description of the Behemoth in the Book of Job -- that beast is clearly a hippopotamus; it eats grass and it likes to live near water.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Jeremy,

Why do you post stuff from Flat-Earth societies? Their denial of modern technological and explorative advancements calls their entire worldview into question. Interesting, now that I think about it: the denial of a spherical earth is similar to a denial of God's existence.

Be careful, now. I did not say that the Isaiah was predicting an expanding universe. Nowhere am I indicating that the Bible is a "scientific text". However, it is a collection of accurate historical and revelational texts. I stated that this verse is consistent with, and not contrary to, modern astronomical observations. I raise the issue an example of the erroneous ridicule that is often aimed at the Bible.

Oh, let's not introduce Quranical comparisons into these discussions. The Qu'ran is, without question, a derivative of the Torah and the Gospels.


Vanderzyden

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Mageth

Their denial of modern technological and explorative advancements calls their entire worldview into question. Interesting, now that I think about it: the denial of a spherical earth is similar to a denial of God's existence.

As does the denial of "modern technological and explorative advancements" concerning origins call creationists' worldview into question? Denial of evolution is a better comparison to denial of a spherical earth.

I stated that this verse is consistent with, and not contrary to, modern astronomical observations.

And Genesis 1-3 are contrary to modern observations.

Ab_Normal

I am, as usual, confused:

Vanderzyden quote 1:
followed by Vanderzyden quote 2:
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Veil of Fire

But God should have been able to.

Vanderzyden

Mageth,

I just realized something, you are always criticizing. Most often, you don't substantiate your claims. So, why should we take them seriously?

We must wonder: are you capable of participating in a discussion, or a genuine debate? Or, are you content to shoot spitwads from the sideline?

I also notice that you don't start any threads. Why is that? I would love to see you start a thread on either of these topics. If you do, you'd better have your armor strapped on in advance.


John

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

I presume you'd say the same of the Geocentrists lead by the astronomer, Dr. Gerardous Bouw. The reason I compare you with the Flat Earth society and the Geocentrists is that you all share a "denial of modern technological and explorative advancements, calling your entire worldview into question."

So when Isaiah wrote this, assuming he did, he must have been totally unaware of what he was writing. It must have been gibberish to him, intended as it was for a modern, scientific society. Is that what you are saying?

Finally, John. You fall back on the "Bible is not a scientific book" argument, just like I predicted at the beginning of this thread, and thus admit that in some areas it is capable of error.

Additionally, it is not an accurate historical account as the complete lack of archaeological verification for events such as the Exodus and invasion of Caanan demonstrate, just to name a couple of examples.

The problem is that the Bible in its consistant depiction of a geocentric universe and fixed, unmovable Earth, is inconsistant with modern astronomical observations.

I shall continue to do so as and when I feel necessary because if you remove references to the corresponding deity and religious work, it would be impossible to determine the faith of the apologist. Islamic apologists and Christian apologists use the exact same arguments.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Jeremy Pallant ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

With all due respect, John, you have the same reputation.

Vanderzyden

I am not "falling back", only clarifying. There is no argument; I'm simply correcting you where you are having me say things that I'm not saying.

The Bible is, by far, the most accurate ancient historical text. Numerous secular and theists scholars attest to the amazing reliability and authentitcity of the content of the biblical canon.

Go ahead, start a thread which attempts to show a fixed geocentric view anywhere in the Bible. When you do, you need to demonstrate and explain. One liners will not suffice.


John