The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[Floatingaxe]

You need to fix this reasoning. It's pretty terrible.

I have no need to fix anything.

Wait, do we have it today or lack it today?

Just because we are many centuries down the road, doesn't mean we have all knowledge yet! We won't ever be able to fathom Creation until we meet God face-to-face.

I agree. But what you're discussing isn't being understanding. It's being naive.

No, it's not naive. it's being full of faith. I don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[Dannager]

Just because we are many centuries down the road, doesn't mean we have all knowledge yet! We won't ever be able to fathom Creation until we meet God face-to-face.

And yet you're certain it happened only a few thousand years ago?

 

[Floatingaxe]

And yet you're certain it happened only a few thousand years ago?

A few. How many is that?

 

[Dannager]

A few. How many is that?

Notably less than millions of thousands.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

It can be both, gotta look at the context, but for the most part it's literal, at least that's what makes sense to me..

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The earth was circular to the people back then! That is how the learned it. You can not just put somthing out there that would just sound stupid to the people of the time.

So the authors of the Bible were either decieved by their 'inspiration', or intentinally lied. OK.
And for the record, the ancient Hebrews knew what a sphere was.

To be fair a sphere is an infinate amount of circles.

Because as well as it being a sphere, there are many circles on many planes in our big blue globe. Duh.

Perhaps, but that is not what was said. The Earth was stated to be circular, not 'a sphere that is made up of infinite rotated circles'. People know what a sphere is, so why not call it a sphere?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

<sigh>
Consider the basic proof of the rotation of the Earth about its axis, the Foucault pendulum. Go to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, or the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh, or Indiana State University or any of the many other places that have a Foucault pendulum.

Sit and watch. It's direction of swing will appear to slowly turn. If, as the geocentrists posit, the Earth is stationary, what is causing the pendulum to change directions?

This should suggest to you that perhaps the geocentrists don't have a very good grasp of General Relativity and that the various bodies in the solar system really do revolve about the Sun.

(or rather, somewhat more accurately, that they revolve about a point that is very close to the center of the Sun, this includes the Sun itself... and of course the entire solar system revolves about the center of the Galaxy. <sigh> Two body problems are so much easier than multi-thousand/billion body problems.)

Special Relativity states that all global inertial reference frames are equivalent. The full explanation of G.R.'s Equivalence Principle is non-trivial, but essentially all reference frames that undergo uniform acceleration are considered equivalent. But the reference frame of interest here is that which a) includes the entire solar system (actually nearby stars as well since you have to deal with parallax) and b) maintains the Earth in a fixed position.

That reference system is undergoing a distinctly non-uniform acceleration.

No matter how you cut it, in reality the Earth really does rotate about its axis and revolves about (some point within) the Sun.

http://www.fixedearth.com/http://www.geocentrism.com/

The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.​

​

The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.​

​

Today&#8217;s cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".​

​

The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.​

​

Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism
in every aspect of man&#8217;s "knowledge" about the Universe, the
Earth, and Himself.​

​

Take your time.
Check it all out.
Decide for yourself.
​

This quote comes under the heading of spreading false testimony about one's neighbor.

 

[david_x]

"They didn't actually happen," is a pretty good reason.

You seem to have an incredible amount of faith. Why do you choose to put it on shifting sand of science?

 

[david_x]

No, it was a discussion about the literal vs. symbolic nature of the Bible.

See, you don't even know what the disccusion was about.

Kind of like the earth being created over the course of billions of years and life arising from a complex series of interactions based on natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and a host of other processes?

Somthing like that, but something impossible like that is not even worth considering as it takes more faith than just thinking that God made it that way.

 

[david_x]

So the authors of the Bible were either decieved by their 'inspiration', or intentinally lied. OK.

No, you do not seem to be able to read my post. They would not have understood the concept and it would have been a lie to them. The point, however, is that it cannot even be a lie as no one new better than. It is kinda like somebody saying that evoulution happens.

 

[Jerrell]

No one knows how old the earth is, scientist only approximate, and creationist only rationlize with scripture.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, you do not seem to be able to read my post. They would not have understood the concept and it would have been a lie to them.

I'm quite sure the concept of sphere's was known to them. Why else would they have a word for it? And so what if they didn't believe it? It's the truth. That it is proclaimed to be circular is direct evidence that the author of the Bible, be it men or God himself, made a mistake. So now we have three:

1. Four-legged locusts.
2. Almost no variation in the modern human Y-chromosome.
3. Flat, circular Earth.

The above three things are predicted by the Bible. The above three things directly contradict reality: locusts are six-legged, there is a large amount of variation in human Y-chromosomes, and the Earth is neither flat nor circular.

The point, however, is that it cannot even be a lie as no one new better than.

Funny, I thought they were inspired by God. Why does he think that the Earth is circular?

It is kinda like somebody saying that evoulution happens.

How droll. Perhaps you'd like to make a not-so-subtle remark about gravitational theory?

 

[david_x]

I'm quite sure the concept of sphere's was known to them. Why else would they have a word for it? And so what if they didn't believe it? It's the truth. That it is proclaimed to be circular is direct evidence that the author of the Bible, be it men or God himself, made a mistake. So now we have three:

Proving once again you have the inability to read posts. It doesn't matter if it is a sphere no one new it!

Funny, I thought they were inspired by God. Why does he think that the Earth is circular?

God was talking to humans, he has to put it in terms they/we can understand. He is not going to give us concepts that are beyond comprehension.

(Plus from the heavens it does look like a circle. )

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God was talking to humans, he has to put it in terms they/we can understand. He is not going to give us concepts that are beyond comprehension.

How on Earth is the concept of a ball beyond our comprehension?

(Plus from the heavens it does look like a circle. )

So God is decived by perspective? Wow, some god.

 

[david_x]

How on Earth is the concept of a ball beyond our comprehension?

It is beyond their comprehention, like flight and such.

So God is decived by perspective? Wow, some god.

Seriously, grow a sense of humar.

 

[Fed]

Hmm, if the Biblical authors couldn't even describe a sphere given they had the word for it, how in the world would they give a scientific account of creation and the flood?

Guess what? They couldn't, and you're misusing the Bible. Creation and Scripture will never disagree if you put them in the correct context.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is beyond their comprehention, like flight and such.

Why? What makes you think that the ancient Hebrews had such an ill-equiped mental capacity? Even sheep can comprehend shapes more complex the spheres.
Oh, and, they had birds back then. I think they could concieve of flight.

And one more thing: if they couldn't comprehend spheres, then why did they have a word for spheres?

Seriously, grow a sense of humar.

The thing about a sense of humour is that it only senses that which is humourous.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm, if the Biblical authors couldn't even describe a sphere given they had the word for it, how in the world would they give a scientific account of creation and the flood?

Guess what? They couldn't, and you're misusing the Bible. Creation and Scripture will never disagree if you put them in the correct context.

In what context is the Earth a disc?

 

[Fed]

In what context is the Earth a disc?

In no context. The ancient Hebrews had a faulty cosmology and when they wrote the Bible, they incorporated it into their writings. All that means is that we shouldn't take any of their scientific details seriously and focus on the spiritual message.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In no context.

Then Creation and Scripture disagree, no matter what context you choose: the former says the Earth is spherical, whilst the latter says it is circular.

The ancient Hebrews had a faulty cosmology and when they wrote the Bible, they incorporated it into their writings. All that means is that we shouldn't take any of their scientific details seriously and focus on the spiritual message.

For the record, my argument is against the literalist's stance. The 'cherry-pick what looks good' stance, while as indefensible as the literalist's stance, is at least immune to disproof.