Biblical teachings

[metherion]

In talking with some people, both on and off this board, I have come to realize that they defend their position about what the Bible says about the earth with inadequate knowledge of what the Bible actually teaches.

So, we will find the Biblical earth view.
Everybody knows about the earth being made in 6 days 6000 years ago in Genesis. So I feel I really don't need to deal with that.

Next is the shape of the earth.
Now, Heaven is above the Earth. So to see all of Earth from Heaven, one would need to have a flat earth as you can't see all of a sphere from one point outside it. Actually, to have one thing seen by everybody on earth, the Earth would need to be flat.
So, to support the view that from a really high point you can either see everything on earth or have everyone on earth see something, we have the following verses in support.
Job 28:24
Matthew 4:8
-though in these two one could speculate that supernatural powers are being used.
Daniel 4:10-11
Isaiah 40:22

When things are spread out, they are flat. Tents (you spread them out before staking them up, you spread out pancake batter to make pancakes, etc.) So,
Psalms 136:6
Isaiah 44:24
Both have the earth being spread out by God. Which means it is flat.

Similarly, Job 26:7 has the north being stretched out over a void. Ever stretch Play-Doh? It doesn't become round, it becomes thin and flat.

The earth is also finite. After all, if it is a sphere (or 3-d oval in reality) you can go to one side or the other forever and never stop. So, saying there is a distance between east and west (for on a round shape any distance east is another distance west), or even just that the earth has ends both indicate a flat earth.
So, this puts
Psalms 103:12
Deuteronomy 28:64
Deuteronomy 33:17
1 Samuel 2:10
Job 28:24
Job 38:13
Psalms 19:4-6
Psalms 22:27
Psalms 46:9
Psalms 48:10
Psalms 59:13
Psalms 61:2
Psalms 65:5
Isaiah 41:9
Jeremiah 51:16
Daniel 4:10-11
Mark 13:27


Now, if the earth is flat and finite, it must have a center and an edge (or set of edges if it isn't round).
We know from Isaiah that God sits "above the circle of the earth". So we'd expect the edge of the world to be round, right? Well, we do find that in
Job 26:10
Proverbs 8:27-29
As well as the Isaiah 40:22 reference.

But wait. A circle doesn’t have corners, does it?
Well,
Job 37:3
Isaiah 11:12
Isaiah 41:9
Ezekiel 7:2
Revelation 7:1
Revelation 20:8
All say that the Earth has corners. So, the earth is some sort of flat square circle. According to the Bible, anyways.

The earth also never moves. According to
1 Chronicles 16:30
Psalms 93:1
Psalms 96:10

Now, here is something that means the Earth CANNOT be spherical. It has foundations. If it were spherical, a rather large part of the thing would be in contact with these foundations. So it must be flat.
2 Samuel 22:16
Psalms 18:15
Psalms 102:25
Proverbs 8:27-29
Isaiah 48:13
John 17:24


However, according to Job 26:7, there earth is hung upon nothing. So does it or doesn't it have foundations?

These foundations, incidentally are pillars, according to
Job 9:6
1 Samuel 2:8

but bases and cornerstones according to
Job 38:4-6

Also, the Bible isn't sure how firm they are. Compare
Psalms 104:5
to
Job 9:6
Isaiah 24:18
And tell me if you figure it out.

And, in addition to the pillars and/or base and cornerstone that are the earth's foundation, and the void of nothing it is hung in, the earth is surrounded by water. Above, below, on the surface of, everywhere.
Genesis 1:6-9
Psalms 136:6
Deuteronomy 4:16-18
Exodus 20:4
Deuteronomy 5:8
Genesis 7:11
Genesis 8:2
Isaiah 24:18

Now, make sure to look at the last three as they emphasize my next point. The sky needs windows because it is solid! God made it solid so He and the sun could walk on it, apparently. And it is also flat. These verses show one or both of these facts.
Job 22:14
Job 37:18 <- the skies are also flat, as they are spread out just like the earth.
Proverbs 8:27-29
Isaiah 40:22
Isaiah 44:24
Isaiah 48:13
Psalms 19:4-6

And the stars are actually pinpricks fastened to the solidness of the sky that can fall down, rather than huge balls of constantly fusing hydrogen.
Isaiah 14:12-13
Daniel 8:10
Matthew 24:29
Mark 13:25
Revelation 6:13
Revelation 12:4


And by the way, the sun isn't actually a star.

1 Corinthians 15:40-41

And it also moves.

Joshua 10:12-13
Habakkuk 3:11
Psalms 19:4-6
Ecclesiastes 1:5


So, let's recap. The earth is a 6000 year old flat square circle, which is anchored with pillars AND base with a cornerstone, on top of a void AND water. It doesn't ever move, but sometimes does.
The sun is mobile and not a star.
Stars are very very small and affixed to the sky.
The sky is flat and solid with windows in it, and water on the other side.
The moon is attached to the sky.

I hope you enjoyed the lesson.

Metherion

 

[Mavros]

So, let's recap. The earth is a 6000 year old flat square circle, which is anchored with pillars AND base with a cornerstone, on top of a void AND water. It doesn't ever move, but sometimes does.
The sun is mobile and not a star.
Stars are very very small and affixed to the sky.
The sky is flat and solid with windows in it, and water on the other side.
The moon is attached to the sky.

I hope you enjoyed the lesson.

Metherion

Now that i call science!!!1

 

[Deamiter]

Note that it would be quite inaccurate to claim that figures of speech in today's English (many of which are based on the Bible) suggest that the Hebrew people used these phrases figuratively. In their times and culture, these beliefs were widespread and there is utterly no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that anybody intended these phrases as purely figurative.

Of course, the Hebrew people were also much less interested in facts than in meaning as evidenced by the repeated discussion of not whether things happened but what the accounts actually meant in Hebrew discussion of their sacred writings.

 

[archaeologist]

itis easy to make a list of false accusations as all the personhas to do is a surface reading and say, 'ah ha, there is an error ...' and make a list.

to rebut such lists takes time, research, thought, prayer and once one makes ananswer there is no guarantee that the initial poster and his friends will accept such thinking; or just dismiss hours of work with a stupid comment or off topic reply that encompasses a sentence or two, if that.

don't expect a quick response to this thread or your post.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Are you on the right thread Archie?

 

[Deamiter]

itis easy to make a list of false accusations as all the personhas to do is a surface reading and say, 'ah ha, there is an error ...' and make a list.

to rebut such lists takes time, research, thought, prayer and once one makes ananswer there is no guarantee that the initial poster and his friends will accept such thinking; or just dismiss hours of work with a stupid comment or off topic reply that encompasses a sentence or two, if that.

don't expect a quick response to this thread or your post.

That does indeed sound like a rather accurate description of the time and energy I've put into explaining the significance of symbolic numbers in Genesis or the poetic form of the creation and flood stories to which you yourself has replied "you're wrong because I believe God."

Note also that this is not just a list of "false accusations" it's research done in direct answer to your repeated request for Biblical support for the claims made elsewhere. The very conclusions in the OP have received much time, research, thought and yes, even prayer from many of us.

 

[archaeologist]

That does indeed sound like a rather accurate description of the time and energy I've put into explaining the significance of symbolic numbers in Genesis or the poetic form of the creation and flood stories to which you yourself has replied "you're wrong because I believe God

i do not recall cutting you off using those words. please link to some examples of your and my posts which do just this.

it's research done in direct answer to your repeated request for Biblical support for the claims made

when i questioned metherion on if he said 'the sun sets' etc. he said it wasn't teaching just because he said it, now he is saying it is teaching just because the Bible says it.

so let me know when you have decided when it is or isn't teaching.

but like i said, to go through that list will take lots of time and i am not willing to spend a lot of time researching when i already know what will take place.

though in a couple examples i can easily see where i can refute them. but if i get to these, it will be awhile before i post a response.you have to keep in mind that it may not get down given the nature of the audience as well.

 

[metherion]

when i questioned metherion on if he said 'the sun sets' etc. he said it wasn't teaching just because he said it, now he is saying it is teaching just because the Bible says it.

so let me know when you have decided when it is or isn't teaching.

Oh come ON. This isn't even a good objection, this is just dumb. But fine. I'll explain.

It's easy.

When I say something it isn't a teaching according to you because my words are not the (supposedly) literally inerrant written Words of God (unless I happen to be quoting them).

What is in the Bible is the (supposedly) literally inerrant Word of God and is (supposedly) not allegorical or mythological unless it specifically says it is.

So, if I say something on the nature of the world it isn't a teaching from God unless I'm using the Bible. But what the Bible says about the world IS because it's the (supposedly) literally inerrant Word of God.

There.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

But fine. I'll explain

you don't need to explain, you arbitrarily decide what si teaching and what isn't, when it suits your purposes, the same as you do with what is allegorical and what isn't.

 

[metherion]

you don't need to explain, you arbitrarily decide what si teaching and what isn't, when it suits your purposes, the same as you do with what is allegorical and what isn't.

You assume I do things I don't and ignore any explaination I give to the contrary.
Please address what the Bible teaches about the earth without assigning fictitous actions to me, or don't post.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

itis easy to make a list of false accusations as all the personhas to do is a surface reading and say, 'ah ha, there is an error ...' and make a list.

to rebut such lists takes time, research, thought, prayer and once one makes ananswer there is no guarantee that the initial poster and his friends will accept such thinking; or just dismiss hours of work with a stupid comment or off topic reply that encompasses a sentence or two, if that.

don't expect a quick response to this thread or your post.

Why don't you just believe God's word when it says these things instead of interpreting it to fit in with secular science?

 

[archaeologist]

Why don't you just believe God's word when it says these things instead of interpreting it to fit in with secular science

but i am not interpretating those things to fit secular science. in this one instance secular science caught up with what God did but that one instance does not give science any authority to be the final determiner of what God did.

you continually harp on what a few r.c.c. leaders believed and use this one instance to trumpet your 'shining hour' ad naseum, and you still forget that only a minority of the people held such a view.

but then we all know that throughout the ages many people held to wrong views, it still doesn't make secular science the only true authority. it can't be because it is not of God.

you love to hold up secular science for all to behold and you do not even see the coruption, the sin and all else contained therein, instead you only lookat what you want to see and allow yourself to be led astray.

 

[Deamiter]

you continually harp on what a few r.c.c. leaders believed and use this one instance to trumpet your 'shining hour' ad naseum, and you still forget that only a minority of the people held such a view.

This is absolutely false. You cannot present a single credible source that shows that only a minority of Christians (or even Jews) thought the Earth was flat before it was shown hundreds of years later.

 

[metherion]

I honestly don't really get what you are saying archaeologist.
Seculare science has caught up with what God did? Which aspect of what God did are you talking about?
If you aren't interpreting them to fit secular science, what views DO you hold?
Are the Bible verses secular science?
Or are the Bible verses flat out wrong?

What are you saying?

Where in any of what I listed in my first post was anything about the R.C.C. or science? The only things I listed were straight from the Bible itself. Chapter and verse. Claiming that they are secular in nature is flat out lying.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

Where in any of what I listed in my first post was anything about the R.C.C. or science? The only things I listed were straight from the Bible itself. Chapter and verse. Claiming that they are secular in nature is flat out lying.

my post was in response to asssyrian's who made reference to secular science. do you understand the use of 'examples'?

Are the Bible verses secular science?
Or are the Bible verses flat out wrong

neither.

i hesitate to say more here also for the fact of what i will say will be mis-understood or mis-used. i see that a lot on this forum.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Well, Archie, as I have said before, were your written English clearer, there would be fewer misunderstandings.

 

[archaeologist]

anyways---it would be sometime before i address such a post,

 

[Assyrian]

but i am not interpretating those things to fit secular science.

Sure you do. You get the facts from science and you interpret scripture to fit.

in this one instance secular science caught up with what God did but that one instance does not give science any authority to be the final determiner of what God did.

Actually slightly more than one instance there archie, metherion listed quite a few things, the shape of the earth, resting on pillars, the structure of the sky, the earth being fix, the sun moving around. Load of areas where science has been catching up with what God did, and more importantly, where a literal interpretation tells a very different story from the scientific account. If you were consistent you would believe to the literal account metherion outlined and reject secular science as a deception of the devil instead of catching up with what God did.

you continually harp on what a few r.c.c. leaders believed and use this one instance to trumpet your 'shining hour' ad naseum, and you still forget that only a minority of the people held such a view.

I usually harp on about Luther, Melanchton and Calvin who believed the bible taught geocentrism, that the earth was fixed and the sun moves around it. These are hardly Roman Catholics. I also talk about Cosmas Indicopleustes, who was a minority voice at the time because the church followed the advice of Augustine and rejected literalism in favour of science.

But you take the side of science here and reject Cosmas's flat earth literalism. Why the inconsistency?

but then we all know that throughout the ages many people held to wrong views, it still doesn't make secular science the only true authority. it can't be because it is not of God.

And when it came to flat earth, it was the bible literalists who were wrong.
When it came to Copernicus the bible literalists were wrong.
It sounds like bible literalism is not a true authority either.

you love to hold up secular science for all to behold and you do not even see the coruption, the sin and all else contained therein, instead you only lookat what you want to see and allow yourself to be led astray.

Who was leading people astray about the world God created,
Aristarchus of Samos who said the earth was a ball or Cosmas Indicopleustes who called this partaking of the table of devils?
The astronomer Copernicus who said the earth rotated or Luther who called him a fool?

You go on about the sin and corruption leading science astray but ignore the fact that bible literalists are fallen fallible and can be deceived too.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

...

anyways .....

From the OED ...

Sorry, there were no results for your search.

 

[crawfish]

Can we use Genesis 38:9 to prove that "coitus interruptus" is an absolutely effective form of birth control?