26 Jan 07
Originally posted by domlo45Isaiah 40:22: 22 It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;
Isaiah 40:22 for that answer another Q. what was the popular belief of the earth in as far as the resting place of it what was the earth resting on. some said the man atlas is holding the world on his back others said the flat earth was resting upon three elephants that are standing on a turtle in a vast body of water but the bibl ...[text shortened]... n in Job 26:7 how could this man know that in his life time unless inspired of God who knows all
The Earth is a sphere, not a circle; a circle IS flat.
Do you think that modern cosmological data supports the notion that the heavens are "spreadeth" "out as a tent to dwell in"?
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by domlo45So why did Columbus try to go round the world if he thought it was flat?
i have a question before Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue was not the popular theory that "the earth is flat"? well that was man's thinking at the time but what God the creator of the earth had man pen down in His Word the Bible is that the earth is spherical. which clearly went against all reasonable thinking at the time. would that be just one ex ...[text shortened]... at the bible is trust worthy which there are more. i can reference the scripture if you like.
Your implication is that the whole world thinks as one and that if a few prominent people say the world is flat then that is "man's thinking".
Many people throughout recorded history have reasoned that the world could be spherical.
I still don't see any clear references to a spherical world in the Bible.
If I find an accurate sentence in one of the ancient Greek writings about the greek gods will you accept it as evidence that the writings are trust worthy?
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat's UPU?
Originally posted by Agerg
[b]If we look at the one case where you see the problem with event causation, ie: the first cause ...
Off the bat you're starting with a strawman (which only confirms my suspicion that you're simply seeing the argument(s) you want to see instead of what's actually presented in front of you). I didn't say that ...[text shortened]... as the previous one provided the essential features and functions were the same.[/b]
Probably Unseen Pink Unicorns. I've heard them called invisible pink unicorns, but the U would work too.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by HalitoseSo your survey of the equator to disprove the existence of Santa is also invalidated by the fact that you have not shown that Santa and his elves are incapable of hiding. Surely for a man capable of flying round the world in one night delivering presents to every chimney in the world and entering even those securely locked houses without chimneys evading a couple of satellites would not be that difficult?
Just a slight correction to your attempted disproof: then to disprove the existence of God it is sufficient to show that rising from death three days after a crucification is medically impossible [b]for God.
Good luck.
You might want to take note of the "edit" I added to my post on the previous page.[/b]
Edit: To further demonstrate how horrendous your strawman really is, I would just need to compare the evidence proposed for the existence of God compared to the evidence for Santa. The scales would be slightly out of kilter.
Actually I have not been presented with any solid evidence for either. (except possibly some presents every Christmas). Otherwise there would be no need for the discussion in the first place.
26 Jan 07
Pilched from a Philosophy site I visit:
On the riddle of the existence of all things:
"Either Someone made the world, or else the world made itself. The first option is summed up by this formula: Matter + energy + information = concept and design (creation). The alternative is expressed by this formula: Matter + energy + time + random chance = complexity and apparent design (an incredible accident)."
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by jammerBut we know creators exist. after all, I created this post didn't I?
Not refering to a Christian God at all .. what I refer to is a Creator.
If you were referring to a hypothetical creator of the universe then why use the word God and why the capital G. You have at least specified that you are referring to a singular entity and not a collection of gods. You are also implying a conscious, intelligent being. If that is all you were referring to then I would agree that it would be rather hard to disprove its existence. But I still maintain that it is equally hard to disprove the existence of a hypothetical entity called Santa Clause or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as we are sufficiently vague about what we are talking about.
The problem however is that you were strongly implying the following:
1. A hypothetical creator could exist.
2. Therefore the Christian God could exist.
which is a false conclusion.
26 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by EAPOECopernicus first made his ideas widespread in 1536.
Copernicus first made his ideas widespread in 1536.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
However long before this time sailors were aware of a curvature across the ocean. When seeing a ship, the flag was the first visible sign on the horizon before the ship ascended into view.
However because of their education and predominantly, ingraine ...[text shortened]... of deduction to say the earth was a sphere.
Bad day for the Pope good day for thought. . . .
People knew about it long before Copernicus as well.
However long before this time sailors were aware of a curvature across the ocean. When seeing a ship, the flag was the first visible sign on the horizon before the ship ascended into view.
At least you're right there.
However because of their education and predominantly, ingrained sociological and religious beliefs they would never have reasoned a curvature to the earth or made the leap of deduction to say the earth was a sphere.
Wrong. For one thing, the horizon argument works well on land too. For another thing, no prominent cosmographer since the 8th century or so has advocated any version of a flat earth (including discworlds). You need to learn your history (real history, that is):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Bad day for the Pope good day for thought. . . .
Bad day for people who rehash popular myths about the "Dark" Ages.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, the Hebrew word used in that passage (chuwg) can mean "sphere" or "round" as well[1].
The Earth is a sphere, not a circle; a circle IS flat.
But the author of Isaiah probably did think it was flat.
[1] http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/earth-mythology (Scroll to halfway down the page)
26 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd the word often translated as 'dome' in Genesis 1:5 - 8 ?
Actually, the Hebrew word used in that passage (chuwg) can mean "sphere" or "round" as well[1].
But the author of Isaiah probably did think it was flat.
[1] http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/earth-mythology (Scroll to halfway down the page)
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderif you do some research in the text the the word "circle" in hebrew is "chugh" which here in Isaiah 40:22 carries the idea of "sphere" i thought the same thing you did i thought the word circle didn't prove anything please do the research. i use to ridicule bible readers for years. so i started digging deep into the bible to prove it false but the more i dug the more truth i found in it. now i have more faith in the word of God than most people i come in contact with. please look it up.
Isaiah 40:22: 22 It is he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;
The Earth is a sphere, not a circle; a circle IS flat.
Do you think that modern cosmological data supports the notion that the heavens are "spreadeth" "out as a tent to dwell in"?
my objective is not to argue but to help people to see that to bible is genuine
27 Jan 07
Originally posted by domlo45It carries no such meaning; that is your take. As already pointed out, the ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was flat. Thus, the fact that the word COULD be used to mean a sphere is hardly proof that that is what is intended; in fact, the evidence is strongly to the contrary.
if you do some research in the text the the word "circle" in hebrew is "chugh" which here in Isaiah 40:22 carries the idea of "sphere" i thought the same thing you did i thought the word circle didn't prove anything please do the research. i use to ridicule bible readers for years. so i started digging deep into the bible to prove it false but the more i dug ...[text shortened]... my objective is not to argue but to help people to see that to bible is genuine
27 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderPLEASE SHOW ME where you found that the Hebrews believed the earth was flat what history book are you reading?! And there are bible translations that instead of circle they say sphere i am going look back and tell you which bible translation you can find it in. that is why i use more than one bible translation so i can get a full concept of the scriptures
It carries no such meaning; that is your take. As already pointed out, the ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was flat. Thus, the fact that the word COULD be used to mean a sphere is hardly proof that that is what is intended; in fact, the evidence is strongly to the contrary.
27 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by domlo45I suggest you read the link Lucifershammer provided.
PLEASE SHOW ME where you found that the Hebrews believed the earth was flat what history book are you reading?! And there are bible translations that instead of circle they say sphere i am going look back and tell you which bible translation you can find it in. that is why i use more than one bible translation so i can get a full concept of the scriptures
EDIT: Or this one: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm
27 Jan 07
Originally posted by domlo45Numerous times in the Bible there are references to being able to see all of the Earth from a single point, or to see a particular tall object from anywhere on Earth. These references are inconsistent with a spherical Earth.
PLEASE SHOW ME where you found that the Hebrews believed the earth was flat what history book are you reading?! And there are bible translations that instead of circle they say sphere i am going look back and tell you which bible translation you can find it in. that is why i use more than one bible translation so i can get a full concept of the scriptures
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm