is this true?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

...actually the Bible states that the earth is circular [b]or spherical and that it is suspended in space...

It doesn't say "or spherical" though, does it? It says round. Is the earth round? No. And god, the bible states very clearly, is everywhere. From such a perspective the earth would not appear round, it would appear as a s er folk have known it was a ball at least since Eratosthenes' day (276 -194 BC).[/b]

whatever, i wondered when the pendants would show up! soo lets get this, the Bible
writer should have said, the one who is dwelling above the irregular oblate spheroid,
(feels bum and wonders where it all went wrong). These statements are scientifically
accurate, you need not accept the reasons, they are good enough for me.

can you cite any reason why the Hebrew, 'chugh', translated circle cannot be rendered
as sphere?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
there is no word for spherical in ancient hebrew. and the bible makes many contradictory statements about where the earth hung; having covered all the angles, they were bound to get one of them close enough to being right.

pure unadulterated bum, there is no contradiction anywhere, its not my fault you have
not the artistic vision to discern between a metaphor (pillars) and a scientifically
accurate statement, hanging the earth upon nothing (invisible forces of gravitation and
the centrifugal force). The reason the Bible writer got these details rather accurate, in
the face of popular opinion of the time was, inspiration!! and no amount of speculative
jive talk of probabilities will negate this simple fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whatever, i wondered when the pendants would show up! soo lets get this, the Bible
writer should have said, the one who is dwelling above the irregular oblate spheroid,
(feels bum and wonders where it all went wrong). These statements are scientifically
accurate, you need not accept the reasons, they are good enough for me.

So you're saying that if the bible-writer had said something different from what he actually said then he would have been scientifically accurate?

edit: Pedant (new definition): people who point out the inaccuracies and fallacies in one's inaccurate and false statements...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you're saying that if the bible-writer had said something different from what he actually said then he would have been scientifically accurate?

nope i am saying that he quite definitely stated 200 years prior to Pythagoras who
theorised that the earth could be spherical, that it was, kept in orbit by
invisible agencies and that it resembled a circle or a sphere, indeed i cannot think of
any reason why the Hebrew 'chugh', cannot be rendered as sphere, and while indeed
technically it would be viewed as an oblate spheroid with flattened poles to state this as
some kind of inaccuracy borders on extreme pedantry, considering there is no Hebrew
equivalent for oblate spheroid. Indeed you will now explain how the Biblical writer
could have known that the earth was hanging upon 'nothing' i.e invisible forces, and
that its shaped resembled a circle (which is just how a sphere might appear when
viewed from any angle), just another two coincidences i guess.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you're saying that if the bible-writer had said something different from what he actually said then he would have been scientifically accurate?

edit: Pedant (new definition): people who point out the inaccuracies and fallacies in one's inaccurate and false statements...

pedant, one who finds fault with others when technical terms cannot be found in their
original language and who then attempts to ascribe terms like fallacy and inaccuracy on
the basis of the non existent term.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pedant, one who finds fault with others when technical terms cannot be found in their
original language and who then attempts to ascribe terms like fallacy and inaccuracy on
the basis of the non existent term.

The argument is pointless.

Whether or not they had separate words for circle and ball, (they did) or one that was interchangeable,
it is clear from the context that the intended meaning was the common view of the time that the earth was
flat, possibly had corners, either floated, or rested on pillars, was covered with a crystal dome which was
covered by a blanket of stars at night.
And importantly, that you could stand on the top of a high mountain and see ALL of it, which is ONLY possible
if it's 'flat'.

The bible, old and new testament, reads entirely like it was written by men thousands of years ago with the
knowledge men had thousands of years ago.

IF it was inspired by god then it should contain knowledge CLEARLY and INDISPUTABLY beyond not only what
they could have known then but some of it aught to still be beyond us now.
(at the very least god could have explained the difference between a ball and a circle, created a word for both,
and made sure it was clear which one was being used.)

It doesn't.

The bible contains nothing that is remotely surprising and is entirely consistent with being written by ancient and
primitive peoples thousands of years ago, who got many, many things utterly wrong.

Both morally, and in their understanding of what the universe consists of and how it works.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pedant, one who finds fault with others when technical terms cannot be found in their
original language and who then attempts to ascribe terms like fallacy and inaccuracy on
the basis of the non existent term.

Oh the lulz.

Anyway, back to my point. No, in no way is that scientifically accurate.

And again, why do you keep looking to prove that which we all know is not provable?

Originally posted by googlefudge
The argument is pointless.

Whether or not they had separate words for circle and ball, (they did) or one that was interchangeable,
it is clear from the context that the intended meaning was the common view of the time that the earth was
flat, possibly had corners, either floated, or rested on pillars, was covered with a crystal dome which was
co
Both morally, and in their understanding of what the universe consists of and how it works.

Nowhere in the entire Biblical text is the earth described as being flat, but you wouldn't
know that for despite pretensions of erudition, clearly its a book you have never
studied. This is the pure folly of the materialist attempting to rationalise the
supernatural with feeble assertions and self certified opinions. You will never get the
sense of these things for they are examined spiritually.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Oh the lulz.

Anyway, back to my point. No, in no way is that scientifically accurate.

And again, why do you keep looking to prove that which we all know is not provable?

yes i have just demonstrated that its scientifically accurate, astoundingly so, you
cannot state how the Biblical author just happened to stumble upon these verifiable
details and persist with the charade, so be it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pure unadulterated bum, there is no contradiction anywhere, its not my fault you have
not the artistic vision to discern between a metaphor (pillars) and a scientifically
accurate statement, hanging the earth upon nothing (invisible forces of gravitation and
the centrifugal force). The reason the Bible writer got these details rather accurate, ...[text shortened]... ration!! and no amount of speculative
jive talk of probabilities will negate this simple fact.

nothing metaphorical about it. they were a bunch of ignorant savages with conflicting views of reality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i have just demonstrated that its scientifically accurate, astoundingly so, you
cannot state how the Biblical author just happened to stumble upon these verifiable
details and persist with the charade, so be it.

the biblical authors stumbled upon the lore and legends of other civilizations. they didn't come up with anything original.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the biblical authors stumbled upon the lore and legends of other civilizations. they didn't come up with anything original.

more mere unsubstantiated opinion, full moon to that!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the biblical authors stumbled upon the lore and legends of other civilizations. they didn't come up with anything original.

the biblical authors stumbled upon the lore and legends of other civilizations. they didn't come up with anything original.

Let's have you back this up.

Please quote to us a passage from any creation myth of any other ancient legendary source that discribes a universal Creator/s as PRIOR TO and totally OUTSIDE of space and time, bringing them into existence.

Ie. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)


Let me be very clear about what I mean. Do not come back with a creation story that shows a creator in progress working with existing material anything. You must produce words that indicate that BEFORE time and space there was alone and by Itself or Himself or Herself or Themselves.

Search your Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Natrive American, Myan, Babylonian, African, Hittite, Phoenician, Assyrian, Persian, Japanese, Greek, Roman etc cosmological tales, myths, legends.

Give me a QUOTATION equivalent to what Genesis 1:1 says, mainly PRIOR to time, space, matter, these all brought into being.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I expect you to produce an equivalent QUOTATION / TRANSLATION (not commentary) that a creator was absolutely prior to matter, time, and space.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am almost certain there is a place in the Holy Bible that talks about he
circle of the earth and that is rests or hangs on nothing. I am not sure
of the exact wording but I know it is in the Old Testament, probably
in the Psalms, Proverbs, or Isaiah. Job also has some interesting things
to say about science.

I found the references I mentioned In the Holy Bible.

New King James Version (NKJV)

Isaiah 40:22

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 out like a tent to dwell in.

Job 26:7

He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

Originally posted by jaywill

the biblical authors stumbled upon the lore and legends of other civilizations. they didn't come up with anything original.

Let's have you back this up.

Please quote to us a passage from any creation myth of any other ancient legendary source that discribes a universal Creator/s as PRIOR TO and totally OUTSIDE of space and time, ...[text shortened]... ION (not commentary) that a creator was absolutely prior to matter, time, and space.[/b]

it's absurd of you to demand a single line comparison.

that being said, you have several choices for comparing with the genesis account.

zoroastrian bundahishn

http://thelaterprophets.blogspot.com/2011/10/genesis-1-and-zoroastrian-creation-myth.html


babylonian enuma elish

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id14.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm


the bible authors had so many creation myths to choose from that they couldn't decide which ones to use so they ended up splicing two conflicting creation myths together.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html


so yeah, if you want to hang up on one line, go right ahead. you'll convince no one but yourself.