Jump to content


Photo

Verses That Make You Go Hmmm...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2009 - 09:41 AM

I'm opening this thread up to deal with some verses that are ambiguous enough or potential double entendres that have been used to declare that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

Remember verses can and have been misinterpreted. I have no problem growing in general knowledge and making it part of my mental furniture while I'm reading scripture. The question is are verse meanings locked down based on historical dogma or are verses to be understood based on their best meaning contextually without being pedantic. Thought, and especially thought in literature, is not impossible to derive true meaning from, even with the potential for misunderstanding. This is why we are charged to press into the things of God, to learn and grow and not simply get distracted by the first little thing that shakes us.

To kick this off I want to share a protest that my agnostic brother shared regarding how the Bible gets the earth's position and movement wrong. Here is a simple excerpt from his position:

The bible also states that the earth is
unmoving:

* I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth
firm, immovable."
* Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable
and firm..."
* Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm,
immovable..."
* Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its
foundation so that it never can be shaken."
* Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and
fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Do you also interpret these scriptures literally?


Here is an excerpt with my response:

A while ago you mentioned the statements in the Bible that spoke of the earth being firm and immovable. I have fun with these supposed problems because people think they can go ‘ah-huh!’ when looking at verses like these. It seems odd to me to approach the speech in the bible as a literalist when common everyday speech forbids it. Let me give an example. If I told you that I built the foundation of my house so well that it won’t go anywhere for a long time then a literalist would tell me that I was wrong because in the length of time that I said that it had already moved because the earth is spinning about it’s axis and on top of that the earth is spinning around the sun and all this is spinning around the center of the Milky Way and who knows how fast the Milky Way is flying through space. Would this conversation be worth entertaining?

I believe the Bible is true. The Earth’s foundation is firm and immovable. God made the earth to last forever and its foundation will not perish, it’s immovable. Did people misinterpret this verse in the past? Probably. Does science help us to better understand the Bible? Yes. Again, the two, creation and scripture, are both signs from God that are meant to be prodded and explored. He encourages us to do this from, of all places, scripture. So again, your question was a great question worth answering.


I can't stop someone from straining out a gnat to swallow a camel but anyone who takes their beliefs seriously should ask themselves if they are open minded enough to receive true meaning and correction when it is offered and revealed or is the primary focus to look at things with trumped up confusion to avoid any progress in understanding at all?

#2 Guest_NoeL_*

Guest_NoeL_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:11 AM

I have some more verses that seem to indicate the Bible gets the Earth's geometry (and cosmos) wrong:

Psalm 24:1-2 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Psalm 104:2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Job 38:12-13 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.



The original Hebrew writings decribe a universe which is best represented by this picture:
Posted Image
Using this model the verses make sense.

It's also worth noting that the Hebrews lived in Babylonia during the time the OT books were written, and the Babylonians believed in a flat Earth quite similar to that picture. Given that some of the OT stories bear similarities to Babylonian mythology, it's quite possible that Judaism arose in part out of that mythology, or that the OT books we know today are copies that have been altered by Babylonian Jews.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:21 AM

NoeL, I have a question for you. Are you this pedantic in your everyday speech? The reason I ask, is for a reason that I'll disclose plainly. If you can shift intelligently and knowledgeably between figurative, allegorical and literal speech, all day every day, without confusion, even understanding the usefulness of varying degrees of precision in the right context, but then apply a set of rules to the language of scripture that nobody uses in normal discussion, what does that say about your own methods? Are they sound? Are they honest and useful?

If you use two different methods to understand two things with similar scope (everyday speech versus Biblical literature), what is this called? It is called a double standard, my friend.

#4 Guest_NoeL_*

Guest_NoeL_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2009 - 11:51 AM

NoeL, I have a question for you. Are you this pedantic in your everyday speech? The reason I ask, is for a reason that I'll disclose plainly. If you can shift intelligently and knowledgeably between figurative, allegorical and literal speech, all day every day, without confusion, even understanding the usefulness of varying degrees of precision in the right context, but then apply a set of rules to the language of scripture that nobody uses in normal discussion, what does that say about your own methods? Are they sound? Are they honest and useful?

If you use two different methods to understand two things with similar scope (everyday speech versus Biblical literature), what is this called? It is called a double standard, my friend.

View Post


Being pedantic doesn't really have anything to do with it, it's about determining what is most likely true from a historical perspective. It's well known that practically every civilisation around that time believed in a flat Earth (the Greeks are the only exception that comes to mind). Both Egypt and Mesopotamia - the parts of the world where the Hewbrews come from - believed the Earth was flat. The verses in the Bible give no hint at being allegorical, and some are complete nonsense if you try to view them as a metaphor (e.g. "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."... say what?). Infact it appears that, historically, Christians were so sure that the Bible spoke of a flat Earth that it was sustained as an accepted fact right up until Columbus proved them wrong by actually sailing around the world. How do you explain that if those verses are, as you claim, clearly metaphorical?

On top of that, there really only appears to be one verse that even HINTS towards a round Earth, and that's Isaiah 40:22. The problem Bible literalists find is that the word used, khoog doesn't appear to ever refer to a sphere - only a circle, circuit, compass, dome... the literalist argument being that they didn't have a word for sphere, which seems pretty unbelievable to me. The word is never used to represent a sphere in other parts of the scripture, and none of the major versions have ever translated it as "sphere".

The evidence shows quite convincingly that the ancient Hebrews considered the Earth to be flat.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2009 - 01:11 PM

If God's Word is misunderstood, does that imply that it was miscommunicated? Before I address the rest of your post, I would hope to get some feedback recognizing that I already addressed some of your protests above. If you can't, what is the point of this discussion?

The only thing I see is this:

"Some people thought the earth was flat. The Bible must be wrong."

If that's all the deeper you intend on going, or all the further you'll consider the options available to talk about this issue, then you may as well go to another forum that you can shake with your charges.

#6 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 21 August 2009 - 02:09 PM

I'm opening this thread up to deal with some verses that are ambiguous enough or potential double entendres that have been used to declare that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate.

Remember verses can and have been misinterpreted. I have no problem growing in general knowledge and making it part of my mental furniture while I'm reading scripture. The question is are verse meanings locked down based on historical dogma or are verses to be understood based on their best meaning contextually without being pedantic. Thought, and especially thought in literature, is not impossible to derive true meaning from, even with the potential for misunderstanding. This is why we are charged to press into the things of God, to learn and grow and not simply get distracted by the first like thing that shakes us.

To kick this off I want to share a protest that my agnostic brother shared regarding how the Bible gets the earth's position and movement wrong. Here is a simple excerpt from his position:
Here is an excerpt with my response:
I can't stop someone from straining out a gnat to swallow a camel but anyone who takes their beliefs seriously should ask themselves if they are open minded enough to receive true meaning and correction when it is offered and revealed or is the primary focus to look at things with trumped up confusion to avoid any progress in understanding at all?

View Post


I've had some very interesting conversations with people on "If the Bible says the earth is flat, so I am excited about this thread...unfortunately I don't have time to review the facts before I dig into this topic.

But I feel that there are a lot of verses that do point out a flat earth...of course I don't expect any self respecting Christian to agree with me. lol I'm sure it is my mis-understanding of the verses, but I'd love to see where I might be wrong!

for now Noel, unfotunateley many Ancient civilizations realized the earth was not flat, at the very least it was curved. Watching a ship sail from the horizon would teach them that. But I'm not certain on which ones right now. :D

#7 Guest_NoeL_*

Guest_NoeL_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2009 - 08:10 PM

If God's Word is misunderstood, does that imply that it was miscommunicated? Before I address the rest of your post, I would hope to get some feedback recognizing that I already addressed some of your protests above. If you can't, what is the point of this discussion?

The only thing I see is this:

"Some people thought the earth was flat. The Bible must be wrong."

If that's all the deeper you intend on going, or all the further you'll consider the options available to talk about this issue, then you may as well go to another forum that you can shake with your charges.

I would like to give you feedback but I don't think you HAVE addressed my protests. All you've offered is a snide accusation of me having double standards and the claim that the verses are metaphorical.

And it wasn't some people, it was most people (most of the people that followed the Bible right up to just a few hundred years ago anyway). As for misunderstood/miscommunicated, of course the writers of the Bible could have misunderstood God, but the question wasn't what God says about the geometry of the Earth, it's what does the Bible say about the geometry of the Earth. If you're referring to people misunderstanding the Bible then the onus is on you to demonstrate that the writers were using poetic metaphors that everybody misunderstood (saying "we know NOW that they can't be literal" isn't enough. You need to demonstrate an understanding of Hebrew poetic techniques built from not only the Bible but other available Hebrew literature and show - with supporting evidence - that the many many verses that speak of a flat Earth are metaphorical in nature).

So far you have given no evidence to support your conclusion. The only thing I see is this:

"The Bible MUST be talking about a round Earth because the Earth is round the Bible is the infalible word of God. I know this because it says so."


The ONLY people that cliam the Bible does NOT speak of a flat Earth are Bible inerrantists, and they are a very small percentage. I'm not saying this alone makes them wrong, I'm saying that their position flows from the pre-affirmed assumption that the Bible contains no errors. It's a position based on wishful thinking, not evidence.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:01 AM

NoeL, I have a question for you. Are you this pedantic in your everyday speech? The reason I ask, is for a reason that I'll disclose plainly. If you can shift intelligently and knowledgeably between figurative, allegorical and literal speech, all day every day, without confusion, even understanding the usefulness of varying degrees of precision in the right context, but then apply a set of rules to the language of scripture that nobody uses in normal discussion, what does that say about your own methods? Are they sound? Are they honest and useful?

If you use two different methods to understand two things with similar scope (everyday speech versus Biblical literature), what is this called? It is called a double standard, my friend.

View Post


He sees what he wants to see. It does not matter how many times this is corrected, most will bring it up again and again at every forum they go and debate creation. It's like an obsession.

They "want" the Bible to be wrong, so they will never accept your explaination.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 August 2009 - 03:05 AM

I have some more verses that seem to indicate the Bible gets the Earth's geometry (and cosmos) wrong:

Psalm 24:1-2 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Psalm 104:2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Job 38:12-13 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Job 9:6  He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

The original Hebrew writings decribe a universe which is best represented by this picture:
Posted Image
Using this model the verses make sense.

It's also worth noting that the Hebrews lived in Babylonia during the time the OT books were written, and the Babylonians believed in a flat Earth quite similar to that picture. Given that some of the OT stories bear similarities to Babylonian mythology, it's quite possible that Judaism arose in part out of that mythology, or that the OT books we know today are copies that have been altered by Babylonian Jews.

View Post


And people often rewrite history to suit their needs.

#10 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 22 August 2009 - 05:22 AM

And people often rewrite history to suit their needs.

View Post



So are you suggesting that we can't trust historical evidence of any kind? Because any historical evidence could have been re-written to suit someone's needs.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 August 2009 - 07:12 AM

So are you suggesting that we can't trust historical evidence of any kind?

View Post

I think it means that if you're going to be a student of history you have to be willing to consider that you have both a representation of true history and perversions of it to suit a particular end. Which versions are most reliable are something that people have to discover for themselves. I know a lot of people who can't look beyond their own nose the moment they discover an alternate explanation to decide that any pursuit of the truth is futile or the explanation that best suits their worldview is good enough.

Call me crazy but I choose to trust a recording that has stood the test of time and is actually still gaining credibility in this age of skepticism. The Bible is amazing. Anyone who disagree on that level alone is trying to rewrite history.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 August 2009 - 11:18 PM

So are you suggesting that we can't trust historical evidence of any kind?  Because any historical evidence could have been re-written to suit someone's needs.

View Post


You pick and choose which evidence you want to believe, right? So I will do the same. You might say: O your just selecting what supports God and His word. And I'd say that the same applies to you on evoution.

We ignore the Christian cursades for the same reason you ignore that Hitler used evolution to justify his actions. And Darwin's cousin headed up the eugenics movement and carried out a lot of Hitler's tests on human sibjects.

But does denal of such history make it go away? I think not. And to ignore history makes us doomed to repeat it.

#13 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 24 August 2009 - 10:20 AM

You pick and choose which evidence you want to believe, right? So I will do the same. You might say: O your just selecting what supports God and His word. And I'd say that the same applies to you on evoution.

We ignore the Christian cursades for the same reason you ignore that Hitler used evolution to justify his actions. And Darwin's cousin headed up the eugenics movement and carried out a lot of Hitler's tests on human sibjects.

But does denal of such history make it go away? I think not. And to ignore history makes us doomed to repeat it.

View Post


Ah but you should never ignore what had happened in the past. Even if its ugly, or the implications are negative.

If you can't learn from the past, then you are bound to repeat it.

What was the basic cause of the Crusades? Was it really to free Jerusalem? Maybe, but it was more than likely a desire for Gold, Power and Land. Were the people who lead the Crusade good Christians? Possibly. were the people who came up with the idea good Christians? Possibly. Would this Crusade have taken up if it wasn't for a religion? Possibly, there was a lot of money to be had. But like you hinted at, it is a Christian folly.

As far as Hitler using Evolution to do the damage he did, I can see that you are also ignoring the fact that he was a Bible believing Christian who had the backing of the Catholic Church, well backing is a very strong word. The Catholic church just didn't say anything negative about his actions until a few decades after the fact. Hitler felt that by killing the Jews he was doing god's work because the Jews killed Christ.

I only bring up this little tidbit because you decided it was appropriate to link Evolution to one of the greatest atrocities of recent history.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 August 2009 - 02:28 AM

Ah but you should never ignore what had happened in the past.  Even if its ugly, or the implications are negative.

If you can't learn from the past, then you are bound to repeat it.

What was the basic cause of the Crusades?  Was it really to free Jerusalem?  Maybe, but it was more than likely a desire for Gold, Power and Land.  Were the people who lead the Crusade good Christians?  Possibly.  were the people who came up with the idea good Christians?  Possibly.  Would this Crusade have taken up if it wasn't for a religion?  Possibly, there was a lot of money to be had.  But like you hinted at, it is a Christian folly.


If you do an indepth study of who actually led the crusades, you will find that he was not Christian. And neither were his soldiers. They used the faith and their symbols as a cover to justify their deeds. This person secretly still worship the sun god sol.

As far as Hitler using Evolution to do the damage he did, I can see that you are also ignoring the fact that he was a Bible believing Christian who had the backing of the Catholic Church, well backing is a very strong word.  The Catholic church just didn't say anything negative about his actions until a few decades after the fact.  Hitler felt that by killing the Jews he was doing god's work because the Jews killed Christ.

I only bring up this little tidbit because you decided it was appropriate to link Evolution to one of the greatest atrocities of recent history.

View Post


At least I can be honest about it. But lets look into Hitler and evoution since you have bought into the liberal history view of it.


Attached File  Slide2521.jpg   14.97KB   5 downloads

Where do you think Hitler came up with the idea to compare different human races to apes? Was there someone else who had this idea other than Darwin?

Attached File  Hitler_cross_replacment1.jpg   25.75KB   8 downloads

Hitler hated the Christain faith so much, he changed the crosses on the german soldiers graves into a pagan symbol instead.

Attached File  Slide275.jpg   24.02KB   8 downloads

In one of his speeches, he denounced the Christian faith.

Attached File  Textbooks_jpgSlide5221.jpg   19.97KB   9 downloads

Hitler's objective was to exterminate inferior races. Which has nothing to do with anything Christ taught.

You may believe what you like about this. But it's all recorded in history. And the references for each is given.

Also, just because someone claims they are Christian does not make them one, no more than standing in your garage will make you into a car. One of the reasons the Catholics got involved with Hitler during the war was that they feared extermination of their religion and themselves. So they made friends with the enemy. But Hitler's army still killed a lot of priests regardless, and destroyed several Catholic churches.

Making friends with Hitler was like making friends with a gator. Sooner or later you will either lose limb or life.

Attached File  Slide236.jpg   37.13KB   9 downloads

#15 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 25 August 2009 - 09:06 PM

If you do an indepth study of who actually led the crusades, you will find that he was not Christian. And neither were his soldiers. They used the faith and their symbols as a cover to justify their deeds. This person secretly still worship the sun god sol.
At least I can be honest about it. But lets look into Hitler and evoution since you have bought into the liberal history view of it.
Attached File  Slide2521.jpg   14.97KB   5 downloads

Where do you think Hitler came up with the idea to compare different human races to apes? Was there someone else who had this idea other than Darwin?

Attached File  Hitler_cross_replacment1.jpg   25.75KB   8 downloads

Hitler hated the Christain faith so much, he changed the crosses on the german soldiers graves into a pagan symbol instead.

Attached File  Slide275.jpg   24.02KB   8 downloads

In one of his speeches, he denounced the Christian faith.

Attached File  Textbooks_jpgSlide5221.jpg   19.97KB   9 downloads

Hitler's objective was to exterminate inferior races. Which has nothing to do with anything Christ taught.

You may believe what you like about this. But it's all recorded in history. And the references for each is given.

Also, just because someone claims they are Christian does not make them one, no more than standing in your garage will make you into a car. One of the reasons the Catholics got involved with Hitler during the war was that they feared extermination of their religion and themselves. So they made friends with the enemy. But Hitler's army still killed a lot of priests regardless, and destroyed several Catholic churches.

Making friends with Hitler was like making friends with a gator. Sooner or later you will either lose limb or life.

Attached File  Slide236.jpg   37.13KB   9 downloads

View Post



All of this is fair enough.

But there are numerous quotes from Hitler declaring his faith. Although you are correct there are many questions of if he was a Chirstian(Catholic in this case) or just claiming so for political reasons. Unfortunately you nor I are able to see into the mind of Hitler to determine that.

It appears we both have something to learn about the Catholic Church and Hitler. It seems certain Bishops were against him and acted in non-violent ways to help protect some people. But these were few and far between.

I can't find it on the internetz anymore, but I know I found when the Church first spoke against his action, and I thought it wasn't till years after the war was over...oh well. ignore that idea seeing I can't back it up :P

But for those who are interested in his quotes pertaining to religion I found a nice 1 webpage list of them. This website also states that he may have been making these religious claims for political reasons.

Hitler on religion

Please remember this when you try to put blame on an idea, religion or thought, for an atrocity. It was not the religion, idea or thought that did so. It was a person, or persons, who decided to act in an atrocious manner.

Trying to vilify Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhists or any other belief or scientific reasoning for an atrocity is just wrong.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:37 AM

All of this is fair enough. 

But there are numerous quotes from Hitler declaring his faith.  Although you are correct there are many questions of if he was a Chirstian(Catholic in this case) or just claiming so for political reasons.  Unfortunately you nor I are able to see into the mind of Hitler to determine that. 

It appears we both have something to learn about the Catholic Church and Hitler.  It seems certain Bishops were against him and acted in non-violent ways to help protect some people.  But these were few and far between. 

I can't find it on the internetz anymore, but I know I found when the Church first spoke against his action, and I thought it wasn't till years after the war was over...oh well.  ignore that idea seeing I can't back it up :P

But for those who are interested in his quotes pertaining to religion I found a nice 1 webpage list of them.  This website also states that he may have been making these religious claims for political reasons. 

Hitler on religion

Please remember this when you try to put blame on an idea, religion or thought, for an atrocity.  It was not the religion, idea or thought that did so.  It was a person, or persons, who decided to act in an atrocious manner.

Trying to vilify Evolution, Atheism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhists or any other belief or scientific reasoning for an atrocity is just wrong.

View Post


This may help:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMZRYMlv9tU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMZRYMlv9tU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADixIqj8XyA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADixIqj8XyA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtSP3LdKRXo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtSP3LdKRXo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

#17 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 27 August 2009 - 06:59 PM

This may help:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMZRYMlv9tU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eMZRYMlv9tU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADixIqj8XyA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ADixIqj8XyA&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtSP3LdKRXo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WtSP3LdKRXo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

View Post



You know I keep on going back to Mein Kampf, and his other writings here. I get what you are saying here. But really He speaks out against Darwin and Evolution in Mein Kampf.

He is quoted as being a Creationist in the "Hitler Tabletalk" (Tischgesprache im Fuherhauptquartier) I just don't think these videos do enough to prove otherwise.

But before we go down this path further, lets just agree to disagree. I don't think I can convince you otherwise, and I don't think you can convince me otherwise.

What is obvious is that you really dislike Evolution, I just ask that you not try to Demonize Evolutionists by hinting that they are responsible for the Jews being gassed. Its sick and disgusting to suggest it, or even hint at it.

#18 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 August 2009 - 10:38 AM

I have some more verses that seem to indicate the Bible gets the Earth's geometry (and cosmos) wrong:

Psalm 24:1-2 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

Psalm 104:2 He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent

Job 38:12-13 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Job 9:6  He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

View Post



Okay i would like to go back and discuss these verses. I realize that It was Noel who suggested them, and that they suggest a world that is not spherical, or ball shaped.

I also know that these were just swept aside for what-ever reasons. But I don't think it was explained why these verses are being dismissed. Is it simply being taken out of context? Would you consider picking these verses as 'quote mining'?

Such as the one that talks about a tree that is tall enough that everyone on the earth can see it. How is this possible, if the world wasn't flat, or at the very least slightly domed shape?

Is it just metaphor? How can you tell?

And the pillars verse? Is this just metaphor also How can you tell?

The verse that describes a canopy like a tent. Is this how they truly thought of the firmament(sky)? If you were in a tent looking to the edges what would you see? A 'horizon' where the tent touched the ground. Isn't this what the verse is suggesting?

Thanks!

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 August 2009 - 11:02 AM

Hey Javabean,

Look up the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. After you have those two principles in hand go back to those verses and see if they express plainly what NoeL implied that they mean.

#20 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 28 August 2009 - 07:42 PM

Hey Javabean,

Look up the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. After you have those two principles in hand go back to those verses and see if they express plainly what NoeL implied that they mean.

View Post



Sure thing! :lol:

Eisegesis (from the Greek root εις, meaning into, in, among) is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.

Okay so I get the fact that you feel he is adding his own interpretation when he reads those specific texts. So that makes sense.

But here is my question then. How do you know your not reading your own interpretations into these verses, or for that matter other verses? And how can you be sure that he isn't using the correct 'exegesis' when reading these verses? Is it because they clearly do not agree with what is currently known about the world?

Your humble student. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users