Comments on: More Atheist-Bashing

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:36:05 +0000

Yes, the 'circle of the earth' thing doesn't really tell us anything. I don't know what word would have been used, or appropriated, for a spherical earth, but I wouldn't expect to see that anymore than I would expect the Hebrew Bible to describe the structure of the atom.

By: Loren

Loren — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:35:33 +0000

Just a quick note about this…I've done very little research, but I'm wondering: is there even a Hebrew or Aramaic word for "sphere"? There is "duwr" which is translated "ball" in Isaiah 22:18 but Strong's doesn't include sphere in the scope of its definitions either. I can't help but wonder what word an ancient Jew might have used upon seeing a large spherical object. That having been said, though, I don't know that anyone here is suggesting the ancient Jews believed in a spherical earth, only that The Bible isn't contradicting science in this case. The Jews probably didn't believe that certain insects, dead bodies and contaminated water carried diseases; they just followed the law as stated at Leviticus 11 and were protected. These weren't intended as scientific statements, but the science and research that spelled out the benefits of this behavior came thousands of years later.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:51:30 +0000

By saying "the language clearly shows that" you are begging the question. 1 Enoch is apocalyptic, and has little bearing on the point, even if it were canonical.

In any case, if you would be the least bit interested in communication rather than tired and well-worn apologetic, you would see that the issue I raised was a broad one of metaphor in the Bible, not flat-earth geocenticism in particular. You have done nothing to address the linguistic question of metaphor.

Thanks for the obviousness of your points, but we're far passed the article, which, incidentally, you would be well-advised to consider.

By: @poduck

@poduck — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:28:02 +0000

I absolutely take into account the original language and culture. The fact is, the original culture believed in a flat earth. The language clearly shows that. I know confirmation bias plays well with believers, but it is by no means a way to look at evidence.

One of the most useful looks at how ancient Jews looked at the world is the book of 1 Enoch. Although non-canonical except for in Ethiopian Orthodoxy, it is possible to see exactly how the world was viewed by contemporary Jews.

"I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out…(1 Enoch 33:1-2)"

"I went in the direction of the north, to the extreme ends of the earth, and there at the extreme end of the whole world I saw a great and glorious seat. There (also) I saw three open gates of heaven; when it blows cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain, through each one of the (gates) the winds proceed in the northwesterly direction (1 Enoch 34:1-2)."

It is clear that he believed that at the ends of the earth, the dome of heaven touched the earth. This is entirely in concordance with the bible.

It is clearly not metaphor that they believed the earth was flat, but the contrary is abundantly obvious.

If you look at the evidence objectively, without bias toward an unerring biblical text, you can see the obviousness of my point. You would never look at any other ancient text with similar evidence and say the people who wrote it didn't believe the earth was flat. There is only one reason you would believe that about the Bible though.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:27:47 +0000

First, how do you know how much evidence would survive of this culture? Summon some intellectual integrity and don't tip the scales in your favor at each opportunity. My point was that even today we use metaphors that "contradict" science.

Again, if you wish to dismiss these 'non-metaphors,' it must be by recourse to the original languages and culture, not your vehement insistence on my emotions and foolishness.

By: @poduck

@poduck — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:47:07 +0000

I should have given reference for my comment.

From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the definition of Chuwg:

1. circle, circuit, compass
2. (BDB) vault (of the heavens)

Neither of which suggests spherical.

By: @poduck

@poduck — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:44:53 +0000

No, you stated that in 1000 years people may think that we thought the sun revolved around the earth. I was talking about why that is not a good analogy since there is much more evidence that we don't believe that than we do.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:12:51 +0000

Are you seriously claiming that I said that we do believe the sun revolves around the earth? I think something got lost on translation.

By: @poduck

@poduck — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:33:46 +0000

Well, you haven't just covered anything. Maybe you should read more carefully. If you are talking about your totally unfounded statement about sunrise and sunset, I figured I would not make you look foolish by bringing up the fact that there is plenty of evidence that we do not believe the sun revolves the earth, and very little that says we do.

Maybe you're talking about your other post where you misinterpret chuwgh or chugh. If that is the the case, you are still wrong, and I replied to it.

If you made some profound statement that I didn't see, you may need to point it out. Otherwise, I can only assume that you are overlooking an entire forest of evidence and holding on to a single tree.

By: Vlad

Vlad — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:59:00 +0000

Please read more carefully. I won't bother going back over terrain I already covered. And I think you have an emotional attachment to your belief system, too. Wow, what a great argument I just made.