That God is "above the earth", makes more sense as a spiritual place of dwelling and not a physical location.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That God is "above the earth", makes more sense as a spiritual place of dwelling and not a physical location.The author seemed to believe there was a distinct area that was "above" the earth, and God's presence was there. On the other hand if the earth is a globe, "above" has no clear meaning - to some people the same position is "below".
If you mean on this forum, I've tried on numerous threads to argue its merits, providing resources to dozens of sources of proof. The whole time I'm met with ridicule, dismissive behavior, and insults.
Assuming that the earth is flat, above it is a physical area. There are passages where God's presence is in a physical location. e.g. Mount Sinai, the Holy of Holies. Maybe Isaiah is saying God's presence is above the earth watching people as if they are grasshoppers. If it isn't saying that then what "truth" is it communicating?That God is "above the earth", makes more sense as a spiritual place of dwelling and not a physical location.
In a constitutional monarchy the head of state is the Queen. Perhaps the "heart" is the parliament or the people. In that example the "head" means they are the boss.Why would head be "the boss" if the heart is the most important thing?
The whole time I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say that the head is associated with thoughts and feelings - though it does say that when talking about the heart, liver, belly and bowels.You seem to shift the context to normalize your hypothesis here,
Jesus could have used "head" or "mind" when talking about understanding rather than using "heart". Why did he say "heart"? Just because he wanted to go along with the popular (incorrect) belief of the time?So, while you do have Aristotle's view on brain, you also have Hippocratic one, and he wasn't alone in thinking that. So, there were always a wide variety of competing schools of thought that sparked and died, and some were embedded and propagated into cultural linguistics a method of speaking conceptual reality as opposed to actual one.
In my high school physics class they didn't even teach quantum physics. But kids are familiar with what it means to use your head or brain and so were the authors of the Bible (except they thought it was the heart, bowels, etc)So just like today, if you ask an average person about quantum physics based on nominal linguistic descriptions that they've heard, they will likely tell you a vastly different story than the one quantum physicists are telling.
You said the linguistic metaphors in our culture don't conform to scientific reality?...Hence, you absurdly expect the linguistic metaphors of that culture to conform to scientific reality that we have today... when even in our culture that's not the case.
My point is there is no evidence the authors of the Bible (and Jesus) had knowledge of where thoughts and feelings actually come from. Using the "metaphor" excuse assumes that they actually know the truth. If they didn't know the truth it means they had false beliefs (yet some of their contemporaries [like Hippocrates] had correct beliefs in some cases)So, there's multiple levels of "true", and you have chosen to focus on one of the most primitive ones.
I think the Bible implies that the earth is flat e.g. "to the ends of the earth". But it focuses on the heart (and bowels, belly and liver) though. And the movement of the sun and the lack of movement of the earth (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 104:5)I am saying that the writers of the scriptures DIDN"T CARE about the shape of the Earth. They NEVER focused upon it. The shape of the Earth is simply not the point of the writings in the Bible. If you could show me ONE PASSAGE where communicating the shape of the Earth is the INTENDED COMMUNICATION, ... your thesis would be more likely, but, having read through the scriptures twice now in a lifetime, I can verify that there is not such a passage.
Assuming that the earth is flat, above it is a physical area. There are passages where God's presence is in a physical location. e.g. Mount Sinai, the Holy of Holies. Maybe Isaiah is saying God's presence is above the earth watching people as if they are grasshoppers. If it isn't saying that then what "truth" is it communicating?
Job 26:7 is not quoting God giving a description about the nature of the Earth being flat and enclosed. It's a response Job is giving Job 26:1. To state it's the only description He gives of the nature of the Earth, flat and enclosed, is misunderstanding what this text in the Bible is relaying. Basically that verse only shows how Job describes the nature of the Earth, it's not God giving him or mankind a science lesson.It's the only description He gives of the nature of the earth, flat and enclosed. I know you haven't done any real study into the topic from a biblical perspective because you asked that question. Usually the 'study' done is a quick internet copy/paste which results in a response like, "circle and hangs on nothing, therefore, a ball".
I think the Bible implies that the earth is flat e.g. "to the ends of the earth". But it focuses on the heart (and bowels, belly and liver) though. And the movement of the sun and the lack of movement of the earth (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalms 104:5)
The whole time I'm saying that the Bible doesn't say that the head is associated with thoughts and feelings - though it does say that when talking about the heart, liver, belly and bowels.
Or it can mean "the central or innermost part of something" (similar to the position of our hearts)
Jesus could have used "head" or "mind" when talking about understanding rather than using "heart". Why did he say "heart"? Just because he wanted to go along with the popular (incorrect) belief of the time?
In my high school physics class they didn't even teach quantum physics. But kids are familiar with what it means to use your head or brain and so were the authors of the Bible (except they thought it was the heart, bowels, etc)
If such merits are warranted, why not instead collaborate with the 'scientists' which have such evidence, and present them for peer review? I think we all want to know the truth. Presenting evidence here isn't going to change anything. Get the powers-that-be to investigate. I would hate for people in school to continue to be purposefully taught lies.
So... hi... butting in here. The Greeks not only proved that the earth is a globe, but they calculated the radius to reasonable accuracy.
Their scientific tools:
1. a stick
Do you have these tools?
Well, that might be because everybody else is fully aware that the earth is round. I look up at the stars at night, and they are totally different from the stars you see, because I'm on the other side of the globe.
People like you always wind up telling people like me that the things we have seen and experienced aren't real. It's hard to take that in a friendly way.
Job 26:7 is not quoting God giving a description about the nature of the Earth being flat and enclosed. It's a response Job is giving Job 26:1. To state it's the only description He gives of the nature of the Earth, flat and enclosed, is misunderstanding what this text in the Bible is relaying. Basically that verse only shows how Job describes the nature of the Earth, it's not God giving him or mankind a science lesson.
If you would like to point to all those passages where God tells us His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space, I'd be most appreciative.
WHY ... would God tell us that His earth is a ball hurling through infinite space ?
WHY ... would God tell us the molecular formulation of water, of salt, of sugar ???
WHY ... would God tell us about phenomenon of electricity ?
Do you believe that God has told us EVERYTHING about His creation ?
That experiment was crap because it was inconclusive. Anyone with any thought effort realizes that. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson pointed out that the Eratosthenes test wasn't helpful in determining the shape of anything, and he's hardly a flat earth proponent.
The experiment wasn't crap. It happened. The data was accurate. The problem from your perspective is the initial assumption or the conclusion. That's got nothing to do with the experiment.
Anyway, the flat earth position has it so that the sun's rays are not coming in parallel. This means that the sun is nearest at high noon and farther away otherwise. However its size does not change, indicating it's far away. The great distance makes it so the rays are coming in parallel, and in that case a curved earth is the best explanation of the data from the experiment.
It's clear you have looked into this. I'm sure you have seen this before. What's the reason for the apparent size of the sun being absolute? Optical illusion... the sun actually changing size... fairies?
I hope that this isn't getting into to much detail, but just out of curiosity, and I do apologize if this was asked already, but what are satellites circling in a Flat Earth scenario? And why do the the videos' coming down from the International Space Station show a round earth as that platform moves around the Earth?Like I mentioned earlier, I'm no longer getting into the detailed debates about this on the forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?