Scientific ACCURACIES in the Bible

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

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.