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.
I'd have thought that by the time of the New Testament being written down that general education of literate Hebrews would let them know the world was bigger and rounder then more ancient cosmologies.No, I am recognizing a basic fact. That in the area and time that much of the Bible was written a belief in a Flat Earth was prevalent. That belief would have very likely have affected how the Bible was written. It does not make that belief true.
It is a pity that you do not understand scientific theories. Yes, most will get a "no" someday. That does not necessarily mean that the theory was all wrong, merely that it could not explain all of the facts. Newton's Law of Attraction, which was more of a theory actually, was 'replaced' by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. There were limited areas where Newton was wrong but Einstein was right. Einstein knew his theory is incomplete, which all but guarantees that it will be replaced some day.Proof?
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"...most theories, soon after conception. --Albert Einstein
That was why I used the qualifier of "much of the Bible". It was likely that at least some if not all of the New Testament writers knew the Earth was spherical. There was a strong Greek influence on the area then.I'd have thought that by the time of the New Testament being written down that general education of literate Hebrews would let them know the world was bigger and rounder then more ancient cosmologies.
No, I am recognizing a basic fact. That in the area and time that much of the Bible was written a belief in a Flat Earth was prevalent. That belief would have very likely have affected how the Bible was written. It does not make that belief true.
See my previous post. And wasn't that found in Matthew only? The author of Matthew may have had a Flat Earth belief too. Realize that if a writer did believe in a Flat Earth it would affect how he related the story.Do you think the NT writers really believed that there was a physical mountain from which every kingdom of the world could be seen? If that was the case, said mountain could also be seen from anywhere on earth.
See my previous post. And wasn't that found in Matthew only? The author of Matthew may have had a Flat Earth belief too. Realize that if a writer did believe in a Flat Earth it would affect how he related the story.
You're missing the point. Even flat earthers have to make up excuses for why you can't see things past a certain distance. The idea of a literal mountain where it is naturally possible to see everywhere on the planet is not something even a flat earther would claim exists.
And Nature said "no" to biblical creationism 200 years ago.Proof?
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"...most theories, soon after conception. --Albert Einstein
How can we suppose something exists that isn't governed by physics? Isn't that supposing something that can't be understood with science?And it does not even have to be that. It only has to form a singularity, an area where none of the current laws of physics apply. The concentration would be what most people call "infinitely large, but in that context it only means a very very very high concentration of energy.
I've read the whole Bible multiple times. And it portrays a loving God, although that revelation is something that is gradually more evident as you read further than the old testament.Odin was too manipulative? I take it you have never read the Old Testament. The book of Job, then Genesis, and Exodus should change your mind.
You didn't answer the question, you just diverted.There is both positive and negative energy in physics. As long as they balance out there is no violation. There are several YouTube videos on this concept, it is not going to be explained in a short post here. Would you like to see one?
By the current laws of physics.How can we suppose something exists that isn't governed by physics?
No. Science can in principle determine what laws are in effect and whether they have changed. The "laws" of physics are not immutable decrees. In science, a "law" is merely an observed regularity in the behavior of a phenomenon.Isn't that supposing something that can't be understood with science?
Really, you are getting a flat Earth from visions? Do you really think the devil showed Jesus the whole Earth, laid out flat?Actually it does. The time Satan took Jesus up on a high mountain only makes sense in a Flat Earth. A globe makes that obviously pointless. The same with the tree in Daniel. It was a dream, but the dream showed a belief in a Flat Earth. The "circle of the Earth" is another example. There was a term that could have been used but the actual term used was that of an inscribed circle in Hebrew, making it even "flatter". Find an actual "the Earth is a sphere" verse, direct or implied.
But you can't study and test something, that isn't testable under the current laws of physics.No. Science can in principle determine what laws are in effect and whether they have changed. The "laws" of physics are not immutable decrees. In science, a "law" is merely an observed regularity in the behavior of a phenomenon.
That is not known. If it was created, it must have been at a time before we know anything about it, assuming that the concept of "time" had any meaning under those circumstances, which is also something we don't know.So, at what point was it created?
Testing it is how you determine what the laws are, what the behaviors of physical phenomena actually are. The "laws of physics" were once Newton's laws, but by testing them it was discovered that they were wrong.But you can't study and test something, that isn't testable under the current laws of physics.
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?