Oolon Colluphid

No, Russ, they're not really arguments against the bible per se, they are merely a sign that it's just a tad bit silly to take it literally as a scientific text. Which I thought was more or less your own position too...?

Cheers, Oolon

Warcraft3

Yes, in general it is my position so you are correct there. But I am a Christian (non- practising though----Ill elaborate on that one later) remember so I do believe the Bible is Gods word.....although I dont usually take it as a scientific text and Im not really an inerrantist either.

But just as you guys see creationists using bad arguments against evolution, I often see non-Christians using bad arguments to try and undermine the Bible......like the whole "pi=3" argument for example. Without commenting on the insect one or the whole bat/bird issue (which are not good arguments against the Bible per se as you say) the pi one is really a poor argument against the Bible.

Now back to the flat earth thing......

I made the comment......And you responded with.........
Why the "Heh" -type response? Im saying that from what I have read on the whole "the Bible says the earth is flat/round" debate I find both sides to be pulling stuff from the text that really isnt supported. Regardless of what people of the time believed about the earth----the Bible does not make a declarative statement about the shape of the earth. Most (if not all) of the statements referred to are poetical in nature and are not meant to establish historical or scientific truth. Now some statements in the Bible ARE historical statements and a few COULD be said to have scientific implications....but the shape-of-the -earth passages are not among them.

I understand that most of you here are not Christians, so I am not surprised that you attack the Bible.....but since I DO believe it do not be surprised that I defend it. Maybe I dont know as much as other people here and on TWEB, but I can read debates between the "experts" and make conclusions for myself.

And I have concluded that the argument of "Well the Bible says the earth is flat...blah blah blah blah" is very weak and borders on being completely retarded.



Russ

simian

Russ,

One of the most telling verses from the bible I can find that tells me "biblical literalists" pick and choose which parts are literal is Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their grandeur."

Now, this is something that supposedly happened to Jesus, where he had to be taken to the top of a very high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world. Given that some of the kingdoms would be over the horizon (given geography as we now understand it). Yes, all sorts of creative footwork is done to keep it from looking like the bible contains factual errors. Basically, it would be nice if the biblical literalists would apply the same sort of reasoning to genesis and conclude it is more of a parable than literal truth...

Simian

Oolon Colluphid

So, do you think that, taken literally, the bible says it’s flat? Is that not a reasonable reading of it?

After all, the earth being flat is common sense (the water would fall off a ball!), so it wouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to believe, in the absence of any other evidence. Hell, would a bunch of bronze age goatherders have believed god even if he had told them the truth? Hence it being poetic.

It makes perfect sense to me that God would talk to them in ways they would understand. Even we ‘moderns’ have a problem getting our heads around the timescales and size-scales of the universe! (If someone doesn’t, I respectfully suggest that they haven’t properly understood the sizes and lengths of time involved!) Why should anyone expect the bible to be a science book? It’s about how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go, yeah?

So, I’m intrigued. Sure, the relevant verses do not (may not?) have to be interpreted as advocating flatness. But a plain reading of them suggests otherwise... doesn’t it? Hence the ‘heh’ response....

As a side issue, I’m also intrigued as to how one decides that a particular interpretation of something like the bible is the correct one. How else than by reference to other evidence?

Cheers, Oolon

Warcraft3

Hello simian:

Very good post indeed. I do agree with your point to a large degree....although Im not sure if I would use that particular verse to prove the "non-literal" point. If I was a strict literalist I would argue that... this particular verse is not in error, because the reason Jesus was taken to a high mountain was for the purpose of isolation. Satan showing Him all the kingdoms of the world was a literal, supernatural event that is not related to the height of the mountain. Thus the purpose for being on a high mountain was for isolation only, not to physically the whole world

I admit that that isnt really a great explanation, and I am sure there are better literalist explanations, but I think there are better verses to show that the Bible is often poetical in nature and isnt to be taken like a science book.

The problem is knowing when to take it literally and when not to, and I believe that can be derived from the text itself.


Russ

Warcraft3

Hey there Oolon:

Another really good post here. You infidels do make some good points sometimes, even if you are heathen
If you take it extremely literally (although I would argue you are reading stuff into the text here)................yes.

From their perspective back then, no, it wouldnt be unreasonable.

Good point. This is another why reason reading the text like a science book is problematic........would the original readers even have been able to comprehend the "real" world if God had just flat out told them? I would say no, probably not, and I would also say it probably would have caused further confusion.

Yes, I have heard some Christians make this argument as well. I still am not sure what I think of the "incidental vessel" view, although I do not discount it right out.

LOL how true, how true...

Hmmmmmm I really do like that phrase..............I just find it compelling for some reason "how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" it speaks volumes and I find myself drawn in by it. Derned catch phrases that make me go "Hmmmm"..........Now where was I?------Ah yes-----The Bible as a science book----

No it is not a science book, this is true, but if is completely wrong about science when it is speaking in a literal, descriptive manner then this could be problematic for the Christian view............I do not think Genesis fits this category though.

Well if by plain you mean "uber" literal, then I would agree with you. After all, we use the phrase "raining cats and dogs", but we dont really mean animals are falling from the sky.....we are simply making a reference to how hard its raining.

Here is how I decide which interpretation is correct.....................

I look at several things and try to find a consistant view (or at best a non-contradictory view) among all of them....

1. The context of the entire Bible
2. Nature
3. The early church fathers
4. The context of the society at the time it was written
5. Extra-Biblical texts
6. My own subjective experiences
7. Opposing viewpoints

I try to use these several things to find truth in Biblical interpretation. I can usually get good info on 6 out of the 7 by listening to or engaging in debates, while number 6 is obviously born out of purely subjective experiences.

So I try to make sense of things by using these 7. There is alot of stuff that still doesnt make sense to me (and probably never will) and so I continue to listen to debate and try to learn some stuff.



Russ

Peter Soderqvist

Yes says the bible, lord Jesus has seen it too!

Ezekiel, chapter 7
1: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2: Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Daniel, chapter 4
20: The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;

Matthew 4:8
7: Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
8: Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9: And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Revelation 7:1
1: And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
2: And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3: Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

The Bible at University of Virginia
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/relig.browse.html

Doctor X

Hugo:

Great! Someone else who has heard of this book.

Flat-Earth Society:

I had a friend in high school whose father belonged to a "group." It was sort of a joke--drinking group. There explanation for why "Columbus did not fall off the edge of the earth? Newton hadn't invented gravity yet!"

I heard . . . somewhere . . . that some retiring Senator or Congressman . . . use to be part of the Congressional Flat-Earth Society . . . which sounded like a similar social "joke."

So I did a search and . . . hey . . . one is www.THOMASDOLBY.com

TalkOrgins also has a good review of an apparently serious group.

Another fun page of the The Flat Earth Society has this disclaimer:

Unfortunately . . . no answer on whether or not Congress has a group . . . though it would explain some things.

For the Current Biblical Debate one might enjoy these articles by Robert J. Schadewald's on whether or not the biblical texts had a "flat earth" in mind.

--J. "Cyrus Teed Was Right!" D.

Worldtraveller

from this thread

right from the (fundy) horses mouth:
So keep on snorting and chuckling, cuz there are plenty who really believe it!

I wonder how they would explain NASA...??? Oh yeah, it's all a hoax. *snort chuckle guffaw*

Cheers,
Lane

Peter Soderqvist

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."

This can explain why Galileo was a hunted man by the "Holy Inquisition"!