winstonjen

But wasn't it you who said, "All of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, except for the parts where it clearly indicates it is figurative, such as Jesus' parables"?

Mageth

You're right, then why are you arguing about it?

I'll repeat it one more time: I'm merely pointing out that your argument against the cited passage is bogus - the word used (khoog) does not mean sphere, and a sphere is not a circle.

Now, I say that I don't know if the biblical writers knew if the earth was flat or spherical, but I must say that the OT texts don't indicate that they knew the earth was spherical, and seem to indicate that they thought the earth was flat. And they definitely indicate that the writers believed in some kind of domed structure such as Peter Kirby posted, whether the earth was considered flat or spherical.

The bottom line is, the Bible does not indicate that the writers had a clear understanding of the cosmos; quite the contrary. What knowledge they had of the cosmos was likely gleaned from other cultures such as the Greeks, whose science was more advanced.

And according to the Webster dictionary, Circular can mean a sphere or an orb, so there is no reason to assume that the Bible authors thought the Earth was flat, when circle can be used in either context - especially when speaking poetically. I would be more inclined to think the authors thought the Earth was flat had they said disk.

But the English Webster Dictionary definition of the word circle used in the translations from Hebrew to English does not apply to the Hebrew word khoog used in the OT, Magus. You need to use the definition of khoog, which did not mean "sphere".

Its called figurative. It refers to God supporting the Earth ( metaphorically). They aren't literal pillars mark - ever hear of poetic and figurative writing?

I've heard of it, and as I've said to you many times, most if not all of Genesis (and other parts of the bible) falls under these categories.

Soul Invictus

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by form? A follower of Christ can classify themself as a form of God, in figurative terms, with God being within and evident throughout the believer.

Would your classification mean literal whereas God in a different form equates Jesus as God as well?

Magus55

God the Father is the Godhead, and spiritual form - He is the Creator of the Universe, Jesus is God the Son, or God incarnate in the flesh - the physical form, and the Holy Spirit is the "soul" of God that lives within believers.

mark9950

The soul will die,I assume you are telling me that the soul of God can sin right?

God said it not me.

Ezekiel 18:4, ".....The soul who sins shall die."

Magus55

No, notice it says, the soul who sins? God is sinless, He never sins. and I use the term "soul" for the Holy Spirit loosely, because I don't know a better term to describe it, other than it being the part of the God that lives within believers.

winstonjen

Because whatever he does is good, regardless of the motivation or any other 'technicalities'. He wouldn't want to condemn himself to hell, would he? :boohoo:

Magus55

Gods motivation is always for the right reasons - his actions are perfectly done out of holiness and righteousness. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Human actions are usually done out of sin ( greed, selfishness, lust, envy, hate etc) - God's never are.

Mageth

Gods motivation is always for the right reasons - his actions are perfectly done out of holiness and righteousness.

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

winstonjen

But god was bored! You gotta cut the big guy some slack! [/sarcasm]

If an action's morality depends on the doer of the act, not the act itself, then morality becomes meaningless.