Isa 11:12 NRSV, NIV, KJV {plus a Hebrew translation of the word corner}

Even if we take this literally, as in when I say today (knowing full well the earth is round) “I will hunt you to the four corners of the earth” or “to the very ends of the earth” or I have even heard the phrase “four corners of the globe” which is inherently admitting to a sphere, it could easily mean that I am taking some poetic license. Much of Isaiah is not written in prose, this particular verse is written in as verse, not prose.

But we could take the view, as I do, that while the Bible was inspired of God, the men who put the pen to paper, did the best they could. If, to the best of their understanding, the world was flat, and the people that they were writing to of the time held the same belief, then it would only make sense that the idioms they used would reflect that understanding. To the best of my knowledge, it was still a couple hundred years before it was widely accepted that the world was (roughly) a sphere.

Now if you were saying: Isaiah spoke saying ‘God has reveled to me, the world is flat, the center of the universe, and all revolves around it.’ Then he’d clearly be wrong, but this is clearly not what he wrote. But then, if that were the case, it’d be universally rejected as scripture, as Isaiah could hardly be thought to be a prophet.

The same argument applies to the verse from Revelations, except here the verse is apparently prose. Albeit, from a section that was given as a vision, with many clearly poetic and symbolic references “in number like the sand on the seashore” and “But the fire came down from heaven and devoured them.”  Next will you tell me the Bible is in error because fire does not devour, we KNOW that it oxidizes.

If you wish I can go and analyze each of your other references individually, but I suspect the same argument will apply. I can tell by looking at the chapters you chose that almost all are going to be poetic as in psalms and proverbs or visionary symbolism as in Daniel. Job may be a parable in its entirety, it’s one of the few chapters, or even areas of the Bible, that I’d say that about.

1. Job 37:33 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.

Job chapter 37 ends at verse 23. I did find this phrase at 37:3. Again, it’s in metered verse, I would interpret this to mean, in it’s context, that God is angry and the skies are filled with lightening all over the world. Not “The earth is flat”.

  2. Job 38:44 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

  Riaz : If the author of the bible thought of a globe earth then the last question in job 38: 44 should of read “Who stretched a measuring line around it?”

Again this is in 38:4, but OK. So? That doesn’t mean that it is flat, just that the person who wrote it down thought it flat. Again, God’s meaning here is that Job is shooting his mouth off about the depth of his knowledge, and God is trying to emphasize to him that his knowledge is not so great. Indeed, one might attribute a sarcastic flair to God’s speech here (and check out the chapter, there’s no doubt of it) he may be going so far as to subtly say “hey, you even think the world is flat, shows what you know”. Or perhaps this wasn’t time for a lesson in physics or astronomy, but in obedience. The irony that you picked this particular verse, and that this should be the case, is just staggering to me.

Likewise, your remaining verse.

The earth as an immovable structure:

1 Chronicles 16:30: Again, this is metered verse, not prose. The author is clearly making comparisons here: *You* tremble ,*The earth* is firm. Are you telling me that the earth is movable compared to humans? I think compared to the earth (even if you live in CA) you’re pretty flimsy and mutable. That is the context of this poetic verse, not that a astronomical finding is being described.
Psalm 93:1: Again a poetic verse, again a reference to the firmness and strength of the earth, not an astronomical exposition.
Psalm 96:10: Same exact phrase as 93:1, in the same context (poetry) I’m starting to think this is an idiom and not at all what you’re taking it to mean.
Psalm 104:5: Again, poetic in nature (most of the Psalms are, indeed lyrics set to music). However, it’s occurred to me that to the Hebrews of the day, the features of the landscape, such as the mountains and the sea, were fixed in place and didn’t appear to move. Firm, solid, reliable, these are the attributes they are ascribing to God by comparison. No one had come up with the theory of continental drift yet. To these guys, penning these poems, God was like this immutable object, like the earth itself.
Isaiah 45:18: Again, this is set in poetic verse, and this phrase “and himself fixed it fast” is in none of my translations. All of mine read more like “...Former of the earth, and it’s maker, He established it – not empty He prepared it. For inhabiting He formed it: “I am Jehovah, and there is none else”

  …the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like

Daniel 4:10-11: Again, all of my translations say midst (some read middle), not center, of the earth. Daniel is having a vision, and this is once again metered verse and the tree is obviously a symbol of something, not a real tree or even necessarily the real earth. This could just as easily read “In the middle of the land a tree so tall it could be seen for a long way in all directions” But that would not be as dramatic or poetic, would it? It would not convey the dream-like quality intentionally communicated in this section of scripture.

Matthew 4:8 ... Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.

Or if the “mountain” (often translated “high place”) moved, or if the scene (Obviously in the future) was a vision that moved and not the actual earth. In fact this is clearly not the actual earth from the context.

The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him…”

If he came and stayed in the same spot, yes. Something tells me this is going to be a very dynamic moment in the earth’s existence, not a peeking out of the clouds in one place for a few seconds. But then, if you want to believe in Heaven being a physical place “up there somewhere”, then I may not be able to argue this one to your satisfaction. I’m thinking this is the best understanding by the writer, written for readers without a metaphysical explanation of things like planer existence or modes of reality.

Hopeful believers in the scientific wisdom found in the Bible ignore the verse above and point to a verse in Isaiah which they think shows that the Bible writers knew the earth was a sphere. They believe that the word “circle” could actually mean “sphere,” since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah’s use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a “ball.”

Again, I have to point out you are looking at poetic verse. None of the context is meant to describe the state of the earth, but the relationship of God to man. Actually the crescent could be that Isaiah and his readers knew that there was some sort of curvature to the earth, but may not have understood that it was a sphere. It doesn’t really matter. If God had meant the Bible to be a lesson in astronomy, it’d be clear what the shape of the earth is.

As a man far more wise than I said “If He meant what He said, why didn’t He say what he meant?” And I think He did. He is not interested in teaching us astronomy, he knows we’d figure that out on our own. He told us what we need to know, about things He only could tell us, in terms humans could understand, even in Abrams time.

In other words you pick and choose what you want to believe is absolute truth; what absolutely happened, and what is allegory or parable! Nice wiggle there David.

David, you say on the one hand that some parts of the Bible you believe are parable (i.e. not meant to be taken as literally true), and some that might be. So you obviously don’t believe that every word of the Bible is literally true.

Excellent, truly a ticklish point indeed. Most parts that are parable are clearly labeled as such.  Something like 30 times in the Bible the reader is told directly “This is a parable”. Many times, things are obviously visions and meant symbolically. Daniel and Isaiah, or Revelations are full of clearly stated visions, and the items and some events are clearly meant symbolically. Often poetry or idiom is used as in any literary work to convey a meaning that is clearly not literal. But in the vast majority of those cases, it is spelled out in no uncertain terms what the intention is, the context reveals it readily. However, there are some books, such as Job and Jonah, where it is unclear if it is parable or an actual history. In most such cases, again it’s not terribly important. It does not matter to me whether Job actually existed, what is important are the lessons taught in the book. Which are true whether he existed or not. The obvious reason for including the story is not to enlighten us concerning a particular man, but to enlighten us concerning a particular teaching. So, I do take it (the lesson) literally, while I am not sure, and it’s not really important, if the story should be taken literally. The lesson reveals the Truth, not the existence of a man named Job.

In addition to this, the Bible is amazingly consistent thematically. When you read the whole Bible, a context develops. This helps greatly in determining the meaning of some scripture. Sometimes I have had trouble understanding the meaning of a verse, and research into word definitions have not helped. Then I’ll be reading another section, and I’ll suddenly get the other. This one is like this, the other is like it too, and over here in a third or fourth, the same lesson is brought out. This is the answer to the question I often pose to my students “If you heard God tell you to kill your neighbor, how would you know if it was God you heard?”. Throughout the Bible a God’s character is revealed, not in one place or another where context might get confused, but over and over, consistently from one story to the next. The more you read, the more of what you’ve read takes meaning, the more clearly the character of God is revealed. I know that slavery is wrong, not because it says so in the Bible anywhere. But because it is clearly in the character of God that men should not own other men.

If you’ve stepped on a bug recently, I don’t think you’re following absolutes either.

huh?

Atheists have the convictions they have not because they were handed to them by somebody else, but because they reasoned them out. They follow them because they believe they’re the right thing to do, not because they’re going to be held accountable to some mythical super-parent.

And tomorrow, when reason leads them to a new conclusion, they have a new conviction. Sorry, but that doesn’t fit my concept of conviction very well. It’s like saying “I’m almost always faithful to my spouse.” And I disagree with the insinuation that Christians leave reason behind.

I could write down my personal “specific set of rules” for you, so you could hold me to them, but I somehow don’t think that would reassure you at all.

No, because next week you’ll rewrite the list to suit what you’d like to do this week. Oh, sure, you’ll rationalize the new logic of your position. But you’ve no one and nothing to keep you from doing it again next week. And since you believe reason has come about completely because of evolution, it is purely natural, and has no higher meaning or direction, I’ve even less comfort in it. Indeed, since you believe thus, you’ve no proof that what you think is “rational” or true at all, it is merely the reflex of your purely physical “intelligence”. Which is subject to change at the next stimulus, hardly an instrument of obtaining Truth.

You really have your head up your ass, dude.

Which explains why I was starting to see you more clearly… damn, shoulda guessed something was wrong.

How can you actually believe that rules decide the actions of the believer?

Because I am one. Brock, you make this too easy…

I have a personal set of ethics I live by and I’ll bet they are every bit as valid and benign as yours; perhaps more so.

Not sure who we’d agree on a judge for that, but it’s unlikely in the extreme that given what I’ve already stated about me, and what you’ve stated about you, that I’d ever agree with your statement, don’t you think? Oh, I see, sorry, rhetorical question.

Main difference between us is that I learned to be accountable on my own. I don’t need a hazy and contradictory rulebook to teach me what I’ve learn from living instead.

Ever occur to you that what I’ve learned by living (which would have to be just as valid to you, by your definitions) is that the Bible is not contradictory and already has the right answers?

And how the hell do you know for a fact that a Muslim or a Platonist “always follows some specific set of rules”?

Not that they follow them ALWAYS, but that they are accountable to them by their own admission. By calling myself Christian and saying I believe in the Bible, I do not say I always perfectly follow it. Indeed, I pointed that out in the first paragraph of my explanation. It means I am willing to be held accountable to it. Go. Read. Then criticize.

I don’t think the whole world could accommodate the wiggle room you would need, or often take, to justify your beliefs. I had you pegged from the beginning when I called you a bigot.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Then call me on my failure against the standard, instead of merely calling me a name. Especially one that clearly applies to you more than me. Repeatedly, you have called me names and attributed feelings and actions to me that are not even close to reality. Without blush you’ve written that if I can’t accept your beliefs and practices, then I’m stupid, and/or hateful. I’ve never once held you to my standards, only to your own. Then you have the nerve to call me a bigot. Brock, hypocrisy is thy name.

Calvin was there an argument there? A logical point of some kind? Even an opinion? All I got was crap. If that’s what you use for determining right from wrong, I hope I never find myself depending on you to do the right thing.

Holy Crap! Thanks Broc! You did a much better job at the Flat Earth argument than I ever could have.

How do you post at SEB then? All he did was look up a few atheist sites, I’m sure you could have done it.  I used no references other than the 4 translations of the Bible I carry in my handheld. Although I almost went to my copy of “Miracles” for my rebuttal to Geekmom. Although, I’m sure there are plenty of Christian sites that would have done a better job than I, but this is the most fun I’ve had in some time.

Christian scholar Saint Augustine [354-430 A.D.] and Father Lactantius, etc…
Wha?? Isn’t it “scholars” like these that wrote the book? Doesn’t that bother you?

Only that you called them Christian. I think you mean Catholic. I’m not interested in what they wrote, I doubt it was inspired. I wrote I believe in the Bible, not the Catholic Church or it’s cadre of leaders. Why, for even a second, do any of you assume that because I believe in the Bible, I’m interested in defending the opinions of Johnson or Catholic “philosophers”? I am not, and I find the idea the former amusing, and the later revolting.

David. That was brilliant! You are a scholar and I am a mere photographer that has never studied the bible. Not that I’m prejudiced against it as I’ve never studied astrology or Greek mythology either. You have stomped upon my arguments and questions as you should. Oh, and I meant Brock did it better than I could have because I don’t have time to research it not because I don’t know how to use a search engine as you suggest.

What I got from most of your rebuttal was a scary feeling that the bible was written for entertainment not as the direct word of God. The fun thing is that it’s much like a Radiohead song because it can be interpreted to mean anything you want. A non believer can interpret it to be full of contradiction and politics, but you can turn the same words to mean the exact opposite. I have always thought that people of that time could not be as smart as the scholars of today, but as creative writers they kicked ass. I guess the best part is that you can base your whole life on a book. Do we know who wrote the bible and when? Do we know their names and their history? Do we know all the people who got their hands on it and what they changed throughout history. These are the things that I really want to know. I’m guessing that the parts of the bible that talk of Jesus are not what anyone would base their whole belief system on because they were written down hundreds of years after he lived. I mean come on, have you ever played telephone? There must be other stuff that was written down while God talked to the author right?

Many years ago, I caught a short flick on TV about a literary student about to take an oral exam about Göthe, who himself returns from the dead and offers to take the exam in the student’s place.

When Göthe is asked about some minor character, he replies that it’s just a silly old man. The examiners rip him a new one and launch into a long tirade about all kinds of things this character signifies.

Needless to say, Göthe flunks an exam about his own work.

You’re welcome Brooks, and good responses, but I think we should just ignore David for a while and get back to the subject of the thread above where two chicks are about to get it on.

With any luck I can get them to mud wrestle.

Most of the quotes were from books normally referred to as the poetic books, the rest were from prophetic books. Psalms is literally a collection of songs, so the radiohead analogy may not be too far off. Your statement “A non believer can interpret it to be full of contradiction and politics, but you can turn the same words to mean the exact opposite.” May not be too far off. There are thousands of pages, if you try hard enough and are willing to ignore the context, sure, you could get it to say anything. But read in context, the meaning is clear. But no book is MEANT to be taken out of context. I’m sure God meant certain sections to be entertaining. God has a sense of humor, and I think it comes through readily in the Bible. He created me, I’m living proof that He has a sense of humor.  But I think he meant for us to understand him to the best of our ability.

As I stated, I think that by and large it is clear were God is using parables or symbolism. Every writer, particularly ones that are trying to convey new ways of thought or difficult concepts, uses these literary devices to get their point across. Why would the men who penned the bible be any different?

I don’t think that people of any age are smarter than any other age. Some ages are in possession of facts that other are not. I think Plato was pretty clever, DaVinci no slouch, and Newton had to be one of the greatest minds ever to walk the face of the globe, but it’s possible, even likely, that Solomon was more clever than any of them. I’d stack any of them against anyone alive today (yes, even Hawking). But just because someone lacks the facts doesn’t mean that they cannot understand the most important truths of any age. Would you rather have a happy marriage, or a fast computer? (If your wife may read this, I suggest you consider your answer VERY carefully)

All of the Bible was written before 75 AD, within 35 years of Christ’s death.  Most of the authors are likely just who they claim to be, but I believe that all of them were inspired directly by God to write exactly what they wrote. We know that the NT has not changed much, if at all from the time it was written. Since so many copies were made so soon after the original scriptures were penned (within 25-150 years of the originals, 5,686 copies were made), it’s easier, not harder to determine what the original actually said. Since the NT repeatedly refers to and quotes the OT, and many copies of the OT exist, again we’re fairly sure it’s an accurate copy of the original writings.

A simple explanation of why many copies make for a more accurate copy:
Let’s say we have this sentence and only a few copies of the original: 1) High God is Holy. 2) Only Bob is Holy. 3) Only God was Holy. 4) Only God is bowling. The original must have been: Only God is Holy.  Since the scripture was always copied one letter at a time, and in Hebrew there is no punctuation, not even spaces, the discrepancies are generally letters, not whole words. With even more copies, the differences in the few should leap out us. We are assured that the NT is 99.5% accurate.

Brooks, photographer… Brooks institute? Naw….

Outstanding thread!

St Augustine existed far before the Reformation (actually only a couple of centuries after Christ) so it really isn’t meaningful to write him off as a Catholic. He was as Christian as they came. David I think you’ve illustrated that bible study is an attempt to “eschew obfuscation”. What separates your take on the bible from someone else is ultimately your own inner bias. If the bible is a source of such an absolute code of ethics, then why the need for all the different denominations?

As for athiests, I work with several. What I admire about them is that they don’t need a “carrot on a stick” to do what’s good. There is no selfish motive of “This will curry me favor with the big guy up-stairs”. My best friend is not only an athiest, he is also a commanding officer in the Marine Corp. The Marines may not be known for their brains, but they are known for their fidelity. If they trust him with command then his ethics must be rock solid.

You’re welcome Brooks, and good responses, but I think we should just ignore David for a while and get back to the subject of the thread above where two chicks are about to get it on.

Uh-uh-UH!  Marriage before sex, remember?  Where are your MORALS??

We were just courting.

Hey, it’s just a matter of definitions.

Marriage: courtship to completion?

David I think you’ve illustrated that bible study is an attempt to “eschew obfuscation”. What separates your take on the bible from someone else is ultimately your own inner bias.

That’s tough criticism indeed. To the contrary, I hope to find Truth through study of the Bible. In fact, that is what led me to it originally. As a Christian, one of my biggest stumbling blocks is keeping my love of God pre-eminent, I often find that my love of the Truth and my wife both compete for my attention. Not that I think it’s an ‘either or‘ matter. It’s more like: is your spouse or your kids more important to you? I agree, and I’ve accused many on this site of using science or logic to prove what they believe, without ever considering that the very argument (of science or logic) they advance is completely dependant on a persons bias prior to the application of the argument. I recognize that I’m fully capable of that error, and as I pointed out, studying with people that will disagree with me helps me avoid that.

Remember, the posts you read from me are after I’ve applied the Bible, not before. How do you know how I felt (or feel) about something? What you know is what I think is the best practice. Here, I think you are projecting a bit. How you feel is how you post, and logic and/or science is used to rationalize your feelings, not control your actions. If I was way out on the fringe, advocating bombing abortion clinics or some such, I think you might have cause to say this about me. But my Christian beliefs are pretty mainstream – in other words, millions of Christians have read the same scripture I have and believe more or less what I do.

And my point was that I’m not here to defend what someone else may say, but I will defend the Bible. St. Augustine was a solid thinker, no doubt. And I’d agree that from what I know, he was a Christian. But he was still just a man, and I will not back every word he wrote as being inspired, just because the Catholic Church decided to put Saint in front of his name.

If the bible is a source of such an absolute code of ethics, then why the need for all the different denominations?

Different denominations exist for a multitude of reasons. Among the “grace by faith” (pretty much all the Christian denominations you can think of) crowd, there is little if any difference in the ethics at all. Most of the differences are in worship style (If you like pop music, why would you listen to a station that always plays jazz?). Some minor doctrinal issues exist, that are generally agreed not to be earth shattering (pre-trib or post trib rapture, time of millennial reign, pre-determination or free will, stuff like that). But there are some big differences between those religions and Catholicism, and then there are some huge differences when you start comparing those religions to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. But the big differences with between “grace by faith” religions and those three really boil down to the fact that they DON’T rely on the Bible as the final authority.

As for athiests… The Marines may not be known for their brains, but they are known for their fidelity. If they trust him with command then his ethics must be rock solid.

Like I said in another thread, integrity is not necessarily gained by becoming Christian, I think Christians and non-Christians have about equal chance of having integrity (which is fairly low, to be honest).  But I don’t need a “carrot on a stick”. I’m going to heaven already. I could decide to be a perfectly evil bastard for the rest of my life, I believe in eternal security. I do what I do because it’s right: because I love God. Not because it’s fun, or it makes me happy, or because I’ll “get crowns in heaven” (a doctrine I have a tough time even agreeing with). Now, don’t get me wrong, I get a lot of joy from serving, and no matter how much I give to God, he always gives back to me in abundance. I have never been able to show more love for Him than He has managed to give to me. But the motivating factor is love. If it wasn’t then it’d be useless for obtaining joy anyway.

First visit to this site….damn….I have to admit I was very amused.

The man was not possesed!  HELLO.  I find it funny that most of the time it is a man who claims to be possesed when it comes to crimes such as this.  I never knew demons were so selective when it comes to choosing a body of flesh.  I personally think all child molesters should be locked away for good or better yet they should all be lined up and shot dead execution style. Shit, if I had it my way I would start an underground ring devoted to killing All of those sick fucks!!! Watch out because if anyone touches my kids I WILL NOT CALL THE COPS!!!!!!  It is a natural response of a mother to want to protect her children and I feel that you know, if you don’t want to die use your brains.  You know whats right and whats wrong.    7 for the kids/allways

The man was not possesed!  HELLO.  I find it funny that most of the time it is a man who claims to be possesed when it comes to crimes such as this.  I never knew demons were so selective when it comes to choosing a body of flesh.  I personally think all child molesters should be locked away for good or better yet they should all be lined up and shot dead execution style. Shit, if I had it my way I would start an underground ring devoted to killing All of those sick fucks!!! Watch out because if anyone touches my kids I WILL NOT CALL THE COPS!!!!!!  It is a natural response of a mother to want to protect her children and I feel that you know, if you don’t want to die use your brains.  You know whats right and whats wrong.  7 for the kids/allways

This kind of rant makes me happy that we have courts of law instead of vigilantism. Sevon, you do realize that like with any crime, child molestation accusations can be false (intentionally or accidentially)?

Here in Germany, we had several cases during the 90s were whole kindergarden staffs were accused of molestation. Other families were dragged into the accusations as well, simply because they happened to be good friends to those first accused. Child protection groups, which had no interest in actually acknowledging the *innocence* of anyone added more wood to the fire with crackpot psychological expertises…

Years later, with all the accused having been freed and proclaimed innocent, some parents are still fighting to get their kids back from the social services. Lucky them - if people like you had their sway, they’d have been shot.

I guess you are right about the false accusations and I’m sorry if I offended you.  I just get soooo mad when I see a proven child molester get probation or a sentence of one year; then they set them free to go right out and do it again.  That is why I said I would not call the cops because here in the U.S. it seems that they don’t care too much about our childrens welfare.  It’s just a slap on the wrist and “ Don’t do that again “.  Bunch of bullshit if you ask me.  The kids are supposed to be our future right? Well, Who is protecting them?

Nah, christians fall for this shit on a daily basis, they just havent grown up yet and cant comprehend this thing known as responsibility.  So they cry and bitch and blame something else entirely, just like any goverment agency or christian mythologist would.

WhiteBlood: ... just like any goverment agency or christian mythologist would.