I am an Atheist Evolution believing Christian

[Cabal]

Excuse me -- the poetic books are down the hall.

Isaiah is considered 'prophecy' -- specifically: 'major prophecy'.

The passage may be written poetically, but it is far from poetry-for-science.

Call it what you want. The usage of the word circle is still geometrically ambiguous. It therefore cannot be making a conclusive statement about the earth's geometry.

Besides, how is an alleged description of nature a prophecy? It is not a prediction of a future event. Given that it's waxing lyrical about the qualities of God, it does not seem unreasonable to consider that chapter at least to be a poetic one (I mean, how big a hint is "To what image will you liken him"?)

 

[Cabal]

Does that include Jesus and the NT writers, Who quoted extensively from the book of Isaiah, and not once mentioned it was retconned?

I said that I'd drop the allegation of retcon on that particular verse - for now. The fact remains that the language is not satisfactorily clear to make a conclusive statement about the geometry of the earth.

And as with many "but Jesus didn't say it"s that creationists come up with - the fact that he didn't address it doesn't mean your interpretation is correct, merely that the topic was comparatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things at that time - the shape of the earth and the mechanism of creation have diddly-squat to do with salvation, after all, so I'm not sure why you expect Jesus to be going through a list of addenda that didn't impact his plan in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

One wonders if poetry is taught in creationist schools...

Yes -- and in all my time debating the Bible, Nathan Poe was the first one who ever recognized the proper type of poetry being employed in a poetic passage; which I found most impressive.

But then, he's a literature professor, so I kinda expected him to know that --

Still -- it impressed me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Call it what you want.

No, I won't 'call it what I want'.

It's basic doctrine -- (meaning you probably won't understand it) -- and to 'call it what I want' will get me bad marks on the final.

 

[Cabal]

No, I won't 'call it what I want'.

It's basic doctrine -- (meaning you probably won't understand it) -- but to 'call it what I want' will get me bad marks on the final.

That's nice.

The point is that whatever you want to classify the passage as (I really don't care, btw), the language is geometrically vague, so the verse cannot contain a conclusive statement on the geometry of the earth.

It's not like this weak-kneed piece of apologetics needs another blade in the jugular, but the earth's cross-section technically isn't circular depending on the angle one observes it from. Oblate spheroid, and all that.

Oh, and as ever, your fundie backwater church does not get to define basic doctrine

 

[AV1611VET]

And as with many "but Jesus didn't say it"s that creationists come up with - the fact that he didn't address it doesn't mean your interpretation is correct, merely that the topic was comparatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things at that time - the shape of the earth and the mechanism of creation have diddly-squat to do with salvation, after all, so I'm not sure why you expect Jesus to be going through a list of addenda that didn't impact his plan in the slightest.

Oh, please.

Trying to water it down by comparing it to soteriology is a cheap shot I don't even feel like addressing.

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

the proper type of poetry being employed in a poetic passage

That sounds interesting, but you might need to explain it more fully as your description doesn't explain what you mean.

 

[Cabal]

Oh, please.

Trying to water it down by comparing it to soteriology is a cheap shot I don't even feel like addressing.

No, you're right.

Jesus totally intended to hold a q&a session to account for his allegedly-verbally-plenary-inspired scribe's poor knowledge of geometry, instead of save his creation from sin. What was I thinking....

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that whatever you want to classify the passage as (I really don't care, btw), the language is geometrically vague, so the verse cannot contain a conclusive statement on the geometry of the earth.

That's obvious.

Then don't tell me it speaks of flat earth, and then expect me to believe you.

Oh, and as ever, your fundie backwater church does not get to define basic doctrine

That's right -- it doesn't.

It follows strict rules of epistemology, hermeneutics and homiletics as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

That sounds interesting, but you might need to explain it more fully as your description doesn't explain what you mean.

I'll pass -- this isn't Mars Hill.

 

[Split Rock]

That's obvious.

Then don't tell me it speaks of flat earth, and then expect me to believe you.

Hey! Score one for AVET! (I'm serious).

 

[Cabal]

That's obvious.

Then don't tell me it speaks of flat earth, and then expect me to believe you.

I don't expect you to believe me, seeing as you've done everything you can to dance around the point that I've repeatedly been making, which is that the passage LITERALLY refers to a circle, not a globe - and a circle can be associated with more than one geometrical construct - so that verse is unable to make a specific statement about the geometry of the earth.

I don't care about what precise form the passage is, because you don't either - you're just looking for an excuse to dodge the inconvenient point.

That's right -- it doesn't.

It follows strict rules of epistemology, hermeneutics and homiletics as well.

And you managed to end up with "circle"="sphere" and "very good"="perfect"?

Not exactly inspiring.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't expect you to believe me, seeing as you've done everything you can to dance around the point that I've repeatedly been making, which is that the passage LITERALLY refers to a circle...

Then why did you refer to it awhile back as 'poetic'?

From Post 72:

Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than your own selective interpretations of poetry to convince people that these verses are referring to actual science.

 

[Tomatoman]

It follows strict rules of epistemology, hermeneutics and homiletics as well.

No it doesn't. It takes everything as literal until it runs up against the vague, incomplete or badly written, which it interprets in any crazy way it can to fit in with the literal stuff.

That is what you do. Don't flatter yourself that you're doing anything else.

 

[Tomatoman]

I'll pass -- this isn't Mars Hill.

In other words you just remember being impressed by something Nathan Poe said but didn't really understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it doesn't. It takes everything as literal until it runs up against the vague, incomplete or badly written, which it interprets in any crazy way it can to fit in with the literal stuff.

For your information, that passage can be interpreted as literally as your phone book:

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

Circle = Arctic Circle

 

[Cabal]

Then why did you refer to it awhile back as 'poetic'?

From Post 72:

That was my surmise as to why it is geometrically vague. Because it isn't geometry, it's poetry. That's why the concern (obviously) isn't to provide an accurate geometric picture, because the word circle cannot do that.

Except as you claimed, it's prophecy (although I'd personally disagree on that chapter) - point is, it still isn't geometry.

Another blow to the neck for this one - much of the apologetics is predicated on the notion that the writer of Isaiah knew that the earth was round and that was what he was referring to. But as the word circle is vague, and the verse predates known determinations of the roundness of the earth a couple of centuries later, it is entirely possible that the writer DIDN'T know that the earth was round.

In which case, this is a retcon imposed by modern readers of the Bible who are so accustomed to the notion of a round earth.

 

[Cabal]

For your information, that passage can be interpreted as literally as your phone book:

Isaiah 40:22a It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

Circle = Arctic Circle

Oh, so it doesn't refer to the shape of the earth now?

Many grasshoppers at the arctic circle, are there?

 

[AV1611VET]

... it is entirely possible that the writer DIDN'T know that the earth was round.

In which case, this is a retcon imposed by modern readers of the Bible who are so accustomed to the notion of a round earth.

The [earthly] writer didn't have to know if the earth was round, square or triangular.

He's only the secretary -- remember?

 

[AV1611VET]

Many grasshoppers at the arctic circle, are there?

So cute -- straight from the church nursery, eh?