Scientific ACCURACIES in the Bible

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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.

...
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?

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