(June 12, 2012 at 1:19 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: We're looking at the passages to see how, when correctly read, they relate to reality.

No you are not. This is the false pretense in which you have organized your witch hunt. You are talking the English translation of a Hebrew text ignoring the original context and focusing in on a word that denotes shape when the message itself has nothing to do with describing shape. All in the name of 'science' when 'science' is clearly not the goal of the passage.

Quote:The reason why we're looking at these verses in the first place is because creationists cite them as showing advanced scientific knowledge from people in a pre-scientific age.

Then approach them as I have approached you. With contextual understanding rightly dividing what was said from any false pretenses.

Quote:So far in this thread, in the cases where biblical cosmology are concerned, your defenses have mostly comprised of switching out words in verses with alternative lexicon meanings of words with little if any justification for such a change.

What you Fail to understand is a lexicon is not a dictionary. A lexicon in this application tells you which definition of the word to use. So if I give you a lexicon's definition that corrects your misunderstanding then it is your understanding of the word in question that is in error and not an 'arbitrary' use of a lexicon.

Quote:You seem to be trying to reinterpret these verses as being entirely metaphor that serves some greater point but you haven't shown why the literal simpler interpretation cannot also demonstrate the same point just as well as the metaphorical. In essence, it appears to me that you're just favoring a metaphorical rather than a literal interpretation because the literal interpretation contradicts reality. You've also ignored the historical context of the controversial statements in question.

This is what you need my argument to be in order for you to dismiss it. However the reality of my work is much different than what you have misidentified. For I am not the person focused on one word. I have pointed to, and reference the whole chapter several times, citing that the message on a contextual scale is speaking to the scope and reach that God has over this earth and has nothing to do with a statement of the shape of this world. Your argument however hinges on the shape of the planet (one word) that you understand to be a two dimensional shape all the while ignoring the content of the message to make your assertion work..

That would be like if I took Newton's first law of motion: "The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force." and I only took one part of it like "external force" and attributed to that 'external force to something other than what Newton originally intended. Like for instance if I said Newton's First law of motion is proof of God, because it sites and "external force."
Obviously this is not what was intended when Newton penned his first law of Motion, and it would be grossly irresponsible for me to represent it in such a way. The same thing is true here. Isaiah is not speaking to the shape of the world as he is speaking to the reach/authority of God who commands it. [as per the rest of the Chapter.] So to say This passage is speaking to shape would be like me saying Newton is speaking about God when he mentioned "external force." At best these are strawmen arguments that should be quickly dismissed.

I'm not inclined to be generous in interpreting Bible versions as reflecting reality, but clearly 'hanging upon nothing' is equivalent to 'floating in the void' allowing some poetic license. There's such at thing as being too literal.

"He stretches out the north over empty space,
And hangs the earth on nothing."

I have no idea what the first line is supposed to mean, but it seems clear that it is being claimed that the earth doesn't rest on anything and 'hanging on nothing' is a lot like 'not hanging on anything'. As far as I know it's the only astronomical matter the Bible gets right and I have no problem letting believers have that bone.

Drich (or anyone)... can you find a single good example of an accuracy in the Bible? Something maybe spookily ahead of its time?

I see lots of examples of INTERPRETATIONS that suggest things, but they're always very, very vague - the Bible is a long book and somewhere in there there's bound to be a few bit and pieces that sound like current scientific theory.

Really, to create a ripple in this thread Drich and "educate us", all you need to do is present good examples of accuracies in the Bible like this that can be proven to be true beyond "reasonable doubt"

(June 12, 2012 at 11:04 am)Drich Wrote: What you Fail to understand is a lexicon is not a dictionary. A lexicon in this application tells you which definition of the word to use. So if I give you a lexicon's definition that corrects your misunderstanding then it is your understanding of the word in question that is in error and not an 'arbitrary' use of a lexicon.

There are many different lexicons. Often times they also given varying meanings for the word in question. How do you decide which meaning of the word is best? So far, my favoring of "circle" is supported by every lexicon I've come across, and most translations, old and modern, use it as well. Compass is given as well in the lexicons. So how do you decide which one to use? If you say context, then you haven't shut me up yet by appealing to a lexicon because we're still arguing over which word the context requires.

(June 12, 2012 at 11:04 am)Drich Wrote: ...
This is what you need my argument to be in order for you to dismiss it. However the reality of my work is much different than what you have misidentified. For I am not the person focused on one word. I have pointed to, and reference the whole chapter several times, citing that the message on a contextual scale is speaking to the scope and reach that God has over this earth and has nothing to do with a statement of the shape of this world. Your argument however hinges on the shape of the planet (one word) that you understand to be a two dimensional shape all the while ignoring the content of the message to make your assertion work..

This will be the third time I've said this. You haven't shown that the passage requires the alternative meaning to make sense of the larger context. Your use of the alternative meaning seems unnecessary in trying to support the overall context of the passage. A literal interpretation can just as well demonstrate God's "scope and reach."

And again, you've completely ignored the historical context of the phrase "circle of the earth." I provided evidence that you refused to address that mesopotamian cultures used this same phrase in connection to flat earth cosmologies. The bible wasn't written in a vacuum. Perhaps you're operating on some extreme sola scriptura principle?

(June 12, 2012 at 11:04 am)Drich Wrote: That would be like if I took Newton's first law of motion: "The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force." and I only took one part of it like "external force" and attributed to that 'external force to something other than what Newton originally intended. Like for instance if I said Newton's First law of motion is proof of God, because it sites and "external force."
Obviously this is not what was intended when Newton penned his first law of Motion, and it would be grossly irresponsible for me to represent it in such a way. The same thing is true here. Isaiah is not speaking to the shape of the world as he is speaking to the reach/authority of God who commands it. [as per the rest of the Chapter.] So to say This passage is speaking to shape would be like me saying Newton is speaking about God when he mentioned "external force." At best these are strawmen arguments that should be quickly dismissed.

This isn't an analogous example. "external force" is not found with the definition of "act of God" in dictionaries. And its use in contemporary writings will probably show to be used exclusively, or nearly exclusively in a scientific sense. Not the case though with "circle of the earth." All I can find at the most in lexicons is circle, circuit, and compass. You're wanting use "compass" it seems but I'm not sure why that helps you much. The only relevant meaning of "compass" in my dictionary is "scope" or "range." And again, the use of this phrase in culture the bible came from argues against your interpretation.

It's helpful to look at the verse once more:

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

Notice the "sits" and the "above" parts. You said earlier on this: "To sit or To Rest on something in this context Means to Control." This is only an assertion. Again, you must show that the literal interpretation doesn't work in the context of the passage. And I did not find any meaning in a lexicon for "sitting" or "above" that says anything about "controlling."

I'm wondering if you even read my reply to you a few days ago: http://atheistforums.org/thread-13262-po...#pid297409

(June 12, 2012 at 10:26 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm)Drich Wrote: I don't mean to be disrespectful, but was I talking to you? Or any of the 'we' other than the person who that comment was directed?

That person along with a few others had me ban from another web site for not being an atheist/supporting his thoughts of God.

And I thought that lying was a big No-NO in your book.

My understanding of your banishment at AFC was that it was for excessive (read: wayyyy over the top, in a manner that very few of the religiotards that troll through there have ever achieved) proselytizing, attempting to set yourself up in a role of self-appointed "teacher" to us as "students" (which no one asked you to do) and insisting upon acting out that charade after being advised otherwise, and for repeated belligerent and obstinate violations of reasonable standards of polite and rational discourse.

I could be wrong on any or all of these points as I was not the one who banished you and have no power to banish and no influence whatsoever over the moderators and administrators there.

No one gets banned at AFC for not being an atheist, or for "not supporting" any member's "thoughts of gawd".

It seems I overlooked the main reason why you became extinct at AFC, which I now see that the excellent staff have dutifully, thoroughly, and meticulously noted (as is their way) in the "Title" portion of your avatar information display and your "About" page at http://atheistforums.com/memberlist.php?...le&u=22489 :






God Bless the AFC Staff.

(June 12, 2012 at 2:29 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: There are many different lexicons. Often times they also given varying meanings for the word in question. How do you decide which meaning of the word is best? So far, my favoring of "circle" is supported by every lexicon I've come across, and most translations, old and modern, use it as well. Compass is given as well in the lexicons. So how do you decide which one to use? If you say context, then you haven't shut me up yet by appealing to a lexicon because we're still arguing over which word the context requires.

If you use a lexicon that was used in a given translation then that lexicon will tell you which defination to use in a given passage to the corrsponding translation. (Which has been the case when I have sought to correct your understanding)

Quote:This will be the third time I've said this. You haven't shown that the passage requires the alternative meaning to make sense of the larger context.

I have answered this two or three times now, but in your quick dismissals, you choose to ignore what was said rather than acknoweledge it.

Quote: Your use of the alternative meaning seems unnecessary in trying to support the overall context of the passage. A literal interpretation can just as well demonstrate God's "scope and reach."

Not If There Isn't A Hebrew Word that Directly Translates Into The Word Sphere! (Maybe 5th or 6th time I've said that)

Quote:And again, you've completely ignored the historical context of the phrase "circle of the earth." I provided evidence that you refused to address that mesopotamian cultures used this same phrase in connection to flat earth cosmologies. The bible wasn't written in a vacuum. Perhaps you're operating on some extreme sola scriptura principle?

Again, if there wasn't a 3 dimentional word that could substitute for the word that describes an all encompassing circle, then how else could it be described?
You are not recognising the limitations of the language, primarly because your using commentary that focouses on the english definations or understandings of concepts and principles rather than the word orgins themselves.

Quote:It's helpful to look at the verse once more:

Seriously? Are you intentionally being obstinate, or do you still not understand that the context of the passage extends beyong the one verse you are only willing to look at?

Here is the complete context of the passage in question:
Isaiah 40:21-24 (MSG) | Whole Chapter
21-24Have you not been paying attention?
Have you not been listening?
Haven't you heard these stories all your life?
Don't you understand the foundation of all things?
God sits high above the circle of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas—
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.
He ignores what all the princes say and do.
The rulers of the earth count for nothing.
Princes and rulers don't amount to much.
Like seeds barely rooted, just sprouted,
They shrivel when God blows on them.
Like flecks of chaff, they're gone with the wind.

Again this points to God's power, position and authority. this passage was not written as a science lesson, but as an acknoweledgement to an all Mighty God. If you adhear to the context of the passage in question and not your selection of one word, and how that word can be interpereted in the english, (effectivly ignoring the hebrew) this discussion if effectivly over.

---

(June 12, 2012 at 11:34 am)hoppimike Wrote: Drich (or anyone)... can you find a single good example of an accuracy in the Bible? Something maybe spookily ahead of its time?

I see lots of examples of INTERPRETATIONS that suggest things, but they're always very, very vague - the Bible is a long book and somewhere in there there's bound to be a few bit and pieces that sound like current scientific theory.

Really, to create a ripple in this thread Drich and "educate us", all you need to do is present good examples of accuracies in the Bible like this that can be proven to be true beyond "reasonable doubt"

From what I understand, the book of "Revelations" is a whole book dedicated to that effort. However understanding/making sense of what was written in the english or Greek is another matter competely.

(June 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote: From what I understand, the book of "Revelations" is a whole book dedicated to that effort. However understanding/making sense of what was written in the english or Greek is another matter competely.

Translation "No, no I can't."

(June 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote: Here is the complete context of the passage in question:
Isaiah 40:21-24 (MSG) | Whole Chapter
21-24Have you not been paying attention?
Have you not been listening?
Haven't you heard these stories all your life?
Don't you understand the foundation of all things?
God sits high above the circle of earth.
The people look like mere ants.
He stretches out the skies like a canvas—
yes, like a tent canvas to live under.
He ignores what all the princes say and do.
The rulers of the earth count for nothing.
Princes and rulers don't amount to much.
Like seeds barely rooted, just sprouted,
They shrivel when God blows on them.
Like flecks of chaff, they're gone with the wind.

Again this points to God's power, position and authority. this passage was not written as a science lesson, but as an acknoweledgement to an all Mighty God. If you adhear to the context of the passage in question and not your selection of one word, and how that word can be interpereted in the english, (effectivly ignoring the hebrew) this discussion if effectivly over.

Many Christians point to that passage as a claim that the Bible says the earth is spherical. I have no problem with your more reasonable (and more in context) interpretation, I just wish more Christians saw it your way. If they didn't try to make the Bible a science book, these discussions would be short.

"From what I understand, the book of "Revelations" is a whole book dedicated to that effort. However understanding/making sense of what was written in the english or Greek is another matter competely."

For once, you may be right about something.

.



WTF is a "defination"??????


WHAT middle school is so poor that it passes a student that spells like this?:

(June 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote: defination

corrsponding

acknoweledge

dimentional

primarly

focouses

definations

orgins

acknoweledgement

adhear

interpereted

effectivly

effectivly

competely

---

(June 12, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If they didn't try to make the Bible a science book, these discussions would be short.

The fact that they try (and fail) to make it into science, to fit it into science, and to compare it to science is their acknowledgement that deep down they know that their fairy tales are fairy tales and that science is far superior to superstition.