Jack the Bodiless

Answer my question, Ed.

Why is knowledge of ancient Rome FORBIDDEN to Biblical scholars?

Why is knowledge of the Bible FORBIDDEN to historians who have studied Rome?

Please cite either the Biblical verse which forbids Biblical scholars from learning about Rome, or a guide to historians which forbids them from studying the Bible.
No, because the chain is not established until the named descendant is born!
You are lying. There is no evidence in the Bible that the Hebrews ever used this bizarre genealogy system, and you know that.
There would be overwhelming geological and biological evidence of a global Flood 2 million years ago if it happened, but there is not. There is no worldwide geological formation from this period, and there was no global mass-extinction event in this period.

And Flood stories similar to the Genesis one are confined to the Middle-East. There are other Flood stories (without the Ark and so forth) from other cultures, but human civilizations arise on rivers, where there is sufficient water for irrigation. Rivers tend to flood, and flood plains are fertile farming land.
So why do you keep trying to pretend otherwise?
You have just said "The man usually had to pay a dowry and then marry the girl". This is exactly what he would have to do if he had SEDUCED her, there was no extra punishment for RAPE. This is quite clear given the context and translational evidence. Therefore you are lying AGAIN.
It only becomes slavery if they are FORCED to do it. That's what slavery MEANS.

You have provided no evidence that temple prostitutes were slaves.

Furthermore, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that "handmaidens" were sex slaves. So you can't argue that the Hebrews were morally superior to other ancient peoples.

Jack the Bodiless

I see that others here have tackled most of the remaining issues.

A few loose ends:
Nope, you didn't forget that the Bible is pro-abortion?

Or nope, the Biblical "Book of Ed" is anti-abortion?
Waait a minute...

Am I reading this correctly? Ed cited Strongs, and Strongs specifically mentions the solid Firmament dome?

If so, then either Ed hasn't actually read the entry, or he lied (again) when he cited Strongs in support of his own position.
"Partial macroevolution" is microevolution, and it has certainly been observed. We also have all those embarrassing transitional fossils showing stages of "partial macroevolution".
The depth of your self-delusion is fascinating. Surely you know there is FAR more evidence for evolution than for the "Atta theory"?

Where are the charred skeletons of Atta's men in the flight-deck area of the planes (analogous to the fossil record)?

Where are the fingerprints of Atta's men on the plane's controls (analogous to the DNA evidence)?

Where is the video footage from inside other panes, showing other al-Qaida operatives hijacking them and flying them into buildings (analogous to the direct observation of evolution still happening)?

And what about the rival theories? The theory that the CIA or Mossad flew the planes by remote-control is technically plausible and doesn't require magic, unlike creationism.

Even if magic is allowed, the theory that evil leprechauns caused the disaster is STILL better than creationism, because there is no evidence AGAINST the existence of evil leprechauns. There is no "Book of Leprechauns" stuffed with contradictions and bogus historical claims, and there are no scientific findings that contradict leprechaunism.

It is hypocrisy of the highest order to claim "insufficient evidence" for evolution while accepting the MUCH more flimsy "Atta theory"!

Ed

A tent is over your head if you are in it, just like the heavens. I have heard some people say that the stars were so bright one night that they felt like they were in a planetarium. Does that mean that they actually believe the sky is a solid dome with little lights? Of course not. In poetic language like this section of Isaiah is written in the writer can use any comparisons he wants to. And since many people at this time lived in tents, he uses that metaphor.

Quote:

ng: Putting all the evidence in the Bible on this subject show quite clearly that ancient Hebrews believed the earth to be flat and the heavens were a dome over the flat earth. The poetic comparison to the tent then becomes clear. You would not peotically compare the heavens to a tent because you now know that the heaven do not look like a tent. All poetry ultimately stems from our perception of reality. As usual you have completely failed to answer the heart of the issue. I quoted and explained Daniel and Neb's dream. In Genesis God puts the sun, moon and stars in the heavens which is a surface separating the waters above from the waters below. etc. Ed: Yes most people probably did at the time, but He may be referring to meteors. The word for stars in Greek and hebrew was also used for meteors. And meteors actually DO fall to the earth. ng: No! People believed that meteorites were falling stars. That is very different from what you are pushing here. Stars falling to earth like in Revelations for example are associated with the end of the world. What this says is that the event is quite unusual which is complete opposite to meteorites which occur regularly ever year at the same period of time.

I was referring to Jesus' statements not Revelation. But in Revelation, the stars falling is symbolic of major changes to the created order that will occur, not necessarily stars literally falling. Or it could mean that events will occur that will cause the stars to APPEAR to be falling to the earth. Not all meteorites and meteors occur regularly every year at the same time.

Quote:

Revelation 6:13 The stars will fall. Revelation 6:14 "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together": God rolls up the Firmament. Revelation 7:1 Four corners. Revelation 12 One-third of all the stars fall to Earth. Ed: Revelation is apocalyptic ng: And so it is. But it reflects the same concepts about the cosmos found in the rest of the Bible. Heaven departs as a scroll ... therefore it is a surface just like it is described in Genesis and in Ezekiel and of course in the book of Enoch. Ed: No, apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic and the symbols are not any type of description of physical reality. ng: One third of the stars will fall is not talking about meteorites. Meteorites are a trivial mundane event.

Huh? The meteor that hit Siberia ~100 years ago was not a trivial mundane event!

Quote:

ng: The other events mentioned in Revelation 6 like the sun burning out and the heavens departing like a scroll is definitely not mundane. The idea that heaven is a surface can be found throughout the Bible. Is 40:22 says that the heaven is like a tent, Genesis says that it separates water from water then there is Ezekiel 1 22 Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. 23 Under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other; each one also had two wings covering its body on the one side and on the other. 24 I also heard the sound of their wings like the sound of abundant waters as they went, like the voice of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army camp; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26 Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. Note all the bold text. Ezekiel describes a surfac like an expanse or firmament which is the same word used in genesis to describe the expanse separating water from water. It is all nice poetry which describes exactly the cosmology in the book of Enoch.

According to the dictionary, an expanse can be solid, liguid, gas, space or etc. So in this case he was probably referring to the space between the rain clouds and the sea and other bodies of water on the earth.

Quote:

ng: Stars falling to earth can be seen in Isaiah but also in Mt24 where Jesus describes the end of the world. Also Jesus in Mt24 and 2 Peter 3 says that the heaven and earth will be destroyed. Now I can understand why earth would be destroyed according to Christian thinking ... BUT WHY IS HEAVEN DESTROYED? 2 Peter 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. ... 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Heavens will be destroyed and is reserved for the destruction of ungodly men. The heavens are a tent-like dome over the earth and are therefore destroyed with the earth because the earth supports the heavens. Read the book of Enoch. You will see that all the Bible says about the cosmos is in complete agreement with what the book of Enoch describes. This is what the Hebrew people believed at the time and that is what the Bible describes as well..

The conjunctive phrase heavens and earth refers to the universe, because Man's sin has had a corrosive effect on the universe, he wants make a new beginning by creating a new heavens and earth, ie universe. I am not really concerned with what the book of Enoch says because the point of this discussion is whether the BIBLE teaches a flat earth and plainly it does not, even if most of the hebrews at the time believed that the earth was flat.

Fiach

This thread is giving me a headache. It is like having a dome on my head.

Fiach

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, EVERY cosmological reference in the Bible refers to the Hebrew flat-Earth model. There are NO exceptions. There is NO HINT WHATSOEVER that the Earth is spherical, that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the stars are large and distant.

You mentioned the Bible's "consistency" earlier. This cosmological model is PERFECTLY consistent throughout the Bible.

Therefore, when you say "plainly it does not", you are plainly lying.

lpetrich

Much of the alleged "consistency" that many Xians, like Ed, talk about is a result of theological interpretation. Thus, when they moan and groan about "quoting out of context", they refer to the "context" of a constructed theological interpretation.

Also, about that early-evolution stuff, I'm surprised that Ed has not commented on it. I have long been interested in evolutionary relationships, and I find work like this most interesting.

What is interesting is how some traditional views have survived, while others have not.

Protostomia and Deuterostomia have survived, but Protostomia is now divided in two, into Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa. Two phyla have long traditionally seemed very close, the Arthropoda and the Annelida, on account of their having segments and per-segment limbs. However, they are split up between those two superphyla.

Annelids and mollusks may seem a less likely close relation than annelids and arthropods, but marine ones have very similar-looking "trochophore" planktonic larvae.

Likewise, hemichordates and echinoderms may also seem like an odd couple, with hemichordates looking more than chordates proper than like echinoderms. But like A's and M's, H's and E's also have similar-looking planktonic larvae.

One intriguing conundrum is how echinoderms had acquired their fivefold symmetry; why do starfish have five fat limbs?

NOGO

You so completely missed the point that I am wondering what is the point continuing.

The planetarium bit. With smog in our cities stars are not visible as they were in the past. If you go out of the city the sky does look more like a planetarium then the city sky. The comparison is correct based on looks alone.

Isaiah does not say that the sky looks like a dome with little lights (like a planetarium) he says that God spread the heavens like a tent. In other words God fabricated the heavens and made them like a tent. You then go to Ezekiel 1 and see that this surface opens Ezekiel sees the throne of God. Notice that Isaiah also says "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". Is this coincidence?

Ed, it is insufficient for you to argue these points one at a time. My claim is that all that the Bible says on the cosmos point to one view, that is, a flat earth with the dome of heaven on top.

How do you explain that every author of the Bible characterized the cosmos in the same way? How do you explain that this view of the cosmos is exactly the same as the one reflected in the Book of Enoch?

Fiach

I agree with your points here. My take on echinoderms based on the 5 limb system is that they are very old, every Early Cambrian, earlier than the Burgess Shale fossils. Nature experimented with a number of bizarre body plans. one was a simple sphere, some were disc like (jellies), and later a disc like form developed appendages with sucker feet for ambulation, and for olding and opening bivalve moluscs. Two lims, or even 4 may not have worked very well. 5 is the minimum but some have 10 or more and are good at grabbing and opening clams. Others went the way of moluscs like snails with one foot, and octopus/squid with several tentacles quite different from echinoderm limbs. Nautilus has the characteristics of snail and squid. Others went for the elongatged segmented types with a head and rear-end. From this developed the advanced head-thorax-abdomen body plan in crustaceans and chordates/vertebrates. Maybe that was Pikaea or an ancestor of Pikaea and crustaceans. Nature along the way evolved flower like animals of symmetry that were successful enough to survive to now. But the head-thorax-abdomen plan has been the most successful of all.

Fiach

NOGO

I did not say that all meterites were mundane events. Ed you are playing dumb here. In Revelations it also talks about earthquakes. In order to tell the reader that he is not talking about ordinary earthquake the author specifically tells us that he was talking about "great earthquake" or something like that.

Logically then if the author is talking about meteorites he would have specified that he is not talking about ordinary meteorites but something special. Something that would only occur at the end of the world.

The author did not specify "big" meterorites nor "big" stars falling to earth but just stars falling to earth. In fact he says one third of the stars fall to earth.

The meteor that hit Siberia was not mundane.
Meteorites are mundane.



"probably" is not good enough, nor is your dictionary definition.
Funny how you always talk about context and now you look at dictionaries. Ed, let the bible tell you what the word means.

Read Ezekiel 1.
Ezekiel sees a cloud.
There are creatures in or around the cloud
The expanse above the creatures and above the cloud opens
Ezekiel goes through pains to tell the reader exactly the relative positions of the Cherubim, the crystal like firmament (a surface) which opened up and the throne of God.

Also if the firmament is the space between clouds and the sea how do you explain that Genesis says this

Gen 1
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

So Yahweh placed the sun, moon and stars in the firmament (expanse). If, as you say, it is the space between the clouds and the sea then

1) The stars, moon and sun are small (very small)
2) Ezekiel would not need to have the firmament open up in order to see the throne of God since he could see the clouds.
3) Clearly the space that you refer to does not compare to a terrible crystal (Ezekiel) and would not scroll away (Revelation)
4) The sun, moon and stars would be close to earth than the clouds.

I think that you need a better guess.


The Bible says EXACTLY the same thing as the book of Enoch because the same people/culture generated both.

Genesis 1
8 God called the expanse heaven.

This definition sticks throughout the Bible.
The was no such thing as the universe as we see it.
The expanse contained everything (sun, moon and stars)

Ed

Fraid so, you never refuted my Feb. 12 post. I even used some of your own interpretation, ie change=death.

Quote:

ng: The problem Ed is that what you call progressive is not. It is more like, abrupt. Hebrew people did not believe in afterlife until they interacted more with other people like in the Greek period and then we see clear believef in the afterlife like in Daniel.

No, Job was written long before the Greek period. Also it is subtly implied in other sections of the scriptures. Such as how God is called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even long after they had died, but since jews believed that God is God of the living not the dead, it implies that they are still alive.

Quote:

ng: Daniel is told to go to his sleep and wait for final judgement. So afterlife is not immediate but must wait till the end of the world because even early Christians believed in a physical "on earth" afterlife. The idea of a soul which survives the death of the body was still not part of the picture.

Yes, they didnt realize that the soul goes immediately to be with God until Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be in paradise with Him today. Most biblically literate Christians know that after judgement day God will make a new heavens and new earth for us to live on in physical bodies for the rest of eternity.